# 

•^ 

co 

^ 

^ 

JO 

,J^^ 

Ic 

1 

J5r        ^ 

Q- 

1 

x^ 

*S5      ^ 

O 

. 

t^        .  . 

$ 

"s      5 

(U 

c 

^        o 

bfl 

Cs 

>S                  EH 

Iz; 

E 

.to 

<i>                M 

CJ 

*♦>» 

^       rt 

CO 

■^ 

:2 

■  ^ 

o 

>, 
^ 

^ 

^ 

-o 

=^' 

% 

■♦-' 

c 

c 

% 

<u 

0) 

•^ 

qI 

^^3 
^ 

. 1 

AN   APPEAL 

®o  ti)e  CtanDfti  of  all  2I9enomf nations, 

IN  WHICH  THE 

OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND  MODE 

ARE  DISCUSSED  DT 

HENRY  >^LICER, 

Minister  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church. 

IN  ANSWER  TO  THE 

REV.  W.  F.  BROADDUS,  OF  VA.  AND  OTHERS. 

SECOND  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED, 

WITH 

A  FURTHER  APPEAL, 

IN  ANSWER  TO 

MR.  BROADDUS'S  LETTERS. 


I  speak  as  unto  wise  men;  judge  ye  what  I  say.     1  Cor.  x,  15. 
Hearken  to  me;  I  also  will  show  mine  opinion.    Job  xxxii,  10. 


BALTIMORE: 
ARMSTRONG  &  BERRY. 

J.    W.    WOODS,    PRINTER. 

1836. 


recommendations:^    ^ 


-St^v, 


^.. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  James  Sewall,  to  the 
author,  dated 

"Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  6/^,1^. 

"I  can  have  no  hesitation  in  recommending  your  Appeal 
to  my  friends.  Your  plan  of  arranging  and  discussing  the 
subject,  is  at  once  judicious  and  perspicuous.  Although,  at 
times,  you  seem  disposed  to  jolt  your  antagonist,  it  is  be- 
cause you  think  he  needs  settUns;  upon  the  proper  foundation. 
When  he  shall  have  answered  all  your  logical  and  scriptural 
arguments,  he  will  have  the  honor  of  doing  that  which,  it 
strikes  me,  none  of  his  brethren  could  have  done  for  him; 
indeed,  he  will  have  the  honor  of  doing  that  which  cannot 
be  done.  If  your  rejoinder  to  Mr.  B's  letters,  should  be  as 
successful  as  your  appeal,  you  will  have  nothing  to  fear 
from  the  bar  of  an  en!i2:htened  public.  And,  if  I  am  not 
one  of  the  most  mistaken  men  in  the  world,  our  Baptist 
brethren,  with  Mr.  B.  at  their  head,  will  be  secretly  sorry 
for  having  provoked  you  to  enter  the  contest.  You  have 
fairly  gotten  both  undfr-holds  of  your  opponent,  and  if  he 
is  not  wrestled  off  his  sophistical  feet,  he  \<\\\  be  the  world's 
wonder.  One  point  will  be  gained.  The  unprejudiced 
W'ill  discover  that  the  water  cry  of  our  mistaken  friends,  is 
not  one  of  the  most  signiticant  cries,  in  the  church,  after 
all.  Send  me  a  few  copies  of  your  book,  when  out.  Like 
the  "barley  cake,"  I  trust  it  will  upset  the  whole  host  of 
Midian.     1  am  yours.  &c. 

JAMES  SEWALL." 


Georgetown,  D.  C,  15th  July,  18.36. 
Rev.  Henry  Slicer, 

Dear  Sir, — I  have  read  your  "Appeal"  on  the  subject 
of  infant  bapti-v7i  in  answer  to  the  Rev.  Wm.  F.  Broaddus, 
with  interest  and  profit.  I  think  you  have  succeeded  in  bring- 
ing together  many  important  facts,  and  presenting  a  strong  ar- 


gument  in  favor  of  what  I  have  always  loved  and  valued  as 
a  gospel  ordinance,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  circulation 
of  the  "Appeal"  among  the  candid  of  all  denominations,  to 
whom  it  is  addressed,  will  do  much  to  settle  the  wavering, 
and  strengthen  and  confirm  those  who  have  already  professed 
their  belief  in  tlie  doctrine  and  practice  you  advocate. — 
There  are  stated  sonie  few  things  to  which  I,  as  a  Presby- 
terian, do  not  subscribe;  these,  however,  do  not  in  the  least 
interfere  with  the  general  argument. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  truly  yours, 

JOHN  C.  SMITH. 


Washington,  D.  C.  Avgmt,  1836, 

Dear  Sir — 

Having  read  youi-  Appeal  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
Bapiistn,  we  are  fully  prepared  to  say,  that  the  work  has 
afforded  us  both  pleasure  and  profit.  Having  known  many 
pious  and  well  meaning  persons  to  be  thrown  into  great 
trouble  and  perplexity  of  mind  by  the  inq-pnious  arguments 
and  positive  assertion??  oi'  the  advocates  ibr  baptism  by  im- 
mersion, we  rejoice  in  the  belief  that  your  appeal,  wherever 
it  shall  be  carefully  read,  will  settle  the  doubting  mind  on 
the  true  notion  of  the  important  Gospel  ordiiiance  of  which 
it  treats.  We  conceive  that  the  subject  is  brought  fully  into 
view,  and  the  arguments  and  objections  of  opponents  fairly 
stated,  and  most  triumphantly  answered  and  refuted.  We 
should  be  pleased  to  know  that  a  copy  of  the  appeal  had 
found  its  way  into  the  hands  of  all  who  wish  to  have  correct 
opinions  on  the  subject  oi"  Christian  Baptism, 

JAMES  M.  HANSON, 
WM.  HAMILTON. 
Rev.  H.  Slicer. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


When  an  individual  presents  himself  in  the  char- 
acter of  a  controversial  writer,  a  proper  respect  for 
public  opinion  requires,  that,  he  state  the  reasons 
which  have  induced  him  to  take  such  an  attitude. 

The  following  pages  have  not  been  called  forth 
by  a  fondness  for  writing — nor  from  the  want  of 
other  important  matters,  with  which  to  occupy  the 
writer's  time, — but  by  the  solicitationsof  friends; 
and  by  what  he  at  least  considers  an  imperious  call 
of  duty,  in  view  of  the  responsible  relation  which 
he  sustains  to  the  people  of  the  Potomac  District. 

There  are  times,  when  silence  may  become  trea- 
son; and  error,  unexposed,  may  be  passed  off  for 
valid  truth. 

Until  lately  I  have  had  no  intention  to  write  on 
the  subject  of  'Christian  Baptism;' — and  even  now, 
^  should  not  have  written — so  numerous  and  press- 


IV 

ing  are  my  engagements — could  I  have  persuaded 
myself  that  the  circulation  of  any  one  of  the  excel- 
lent tracts  that  have  been  written  by  others,  would 
have  met  our  peculiar  circumstances,  in  relation  to 
this  subject. 

With  a  district  two  hundred  miles  in  length;  con- 
taining six  or  seven  thousand  church  members;  with 
fifty-two  large  meetings  to  attend  in  about  forty- 
eight  weeks,  and  a  travel  of  about  2,500  miles  to 
perform  in  the  same  time;  I  considered  that  1  had 
no  time  to  devote  to  writing  on  this  subject,  without 
oppressing  myself,  or  neglecting  matters,  having  a 
prior  claim  upon  me,  and  possessing  a  paramount 
importance.  The  former  I  have  done,  in  view  of 
the  necessity  laid  upon  me,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
latter*  At  different  times  and  in  several  places,  at 
the  instance  of  my  friends,  I  have  been  led  to  make 
remarks  on  the  obligation,  mode,  and  subjects  of 
baptism;  and  have  administered  the  ordinance  to 
hundreds  of  adults  of  all  ages,  from  the  sire  of  70, 
down  to  the  youth;  as  well  as  to  infants.  With  the 
Baptists,  as  a  people,  we  have  had  no  quarrel,  and 
for  many  of  them  we  have  had,  and  do  still  enter- 
tain, more  than  mere  respect;  and  if  our  views,  as 
expressed  in  the  following  pages,  should  be  thought 


to  be  expressed  in  language  too  severe,  we  have  only 
to  say,  that  where  we  have  seemed  in  the  least  caus- 
tic, it  was  because  we  considered  the  case  required 
it. 

We  have  no  interests  that  we  have  not  laid  at  the 
feet  of  truth;  and  none  that  we  are  not  willing  to 
peril  in  its  defence.  And  we  wish  it  distinctly  un- 
derstood, that  we  take  the  whole  responsibility  of 
the  views  herein  expressed. 

We  have  not  sought  to  make  proselytes  to  a  party; 
nor  have  we  even  interfered  with  any  who  have  been 
awakened  at  Baptist  meetings;  we  have  acted  solely 
on  the  defensive,  in  order  to  save  our  people  from 
perplexity,  and  prevent  others  from  "bereaving  us 
of  our  children." 

Some  eighteen  months  ago,  I  found  a  pamphlet 
circulating  in  the  community,  written  by  Elder  W. 
F.  Broaddus,  entitled,  "Strictures  on  Mr.  Diefien- 
bacher's  doctrine  of  water  baptism,  infant  baptism," 
&c. 

I  read  it,  and  found  a  good  deal  of  ridicule  and 
sophistry  employed  against  those  who  hold  infant 
baptism,  and  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring.  I 
took  no  public  notice  of  it,  until  the  tenth  day  of 
last  November,  when  at  Upperville,  Va.,  by  request. 


VI 

I  delivered  an  argument  on  baptism,  in  which  1  re- 
plied to  all  the  matter  contained  in  the  strictures 
which  I  thought  entitled  to  notice;  but,  lest  any  of- 
fence should  be  taken,  I  purposely  avoided  the  men- 
tion of  Mr.  B's  name. 

After  I  had  administered  the  ordinaliCvO  to  twenty- 
three  adults  and  some  infants,  as  I  preferred  to  dis- 
cuss the  subject  publicly,  I  made  a  general  offer  to 
debate  the  matter  with  any  gentleman,  minister 
or  layman,  within  the  bounds  of  my  district,  at  any 
time  and  place,  which  might  bo  appointed  for  that 
purpose.  A  Baptist  minister  present,  declined  the 
ofier  publicly,  in  tiie  presence  of  about  one  thousand 
persons.  Mr.  Broaddus  knew  of  what  had  passed, 
but  did  not  see  proper  to  accept  the  offer. 

He,  however,  preached  a  sermon  on  the  same  sub- 
ject in  the  same  village  about  three  weeks  after- 
wards, which  sermon  he  published  after  the  lapse  of 
about  four  or  five  months.  I  accidentally  heard  of 
his  intention  to  preach,  two  days  before  the  time, 
and  that  a  rumor,  or  report  was  in  circulation 
through  the  neighborhood,  by  his  friends,  that  I  was 
expected  to  be  present  on  the  occasion.  I  wrota 
immediately  to  Upperville,  informing  my  friends 
that  I  had   received  no  notice  of  the  appointment 


VII 

from  Mr.  B ,  and  in  the  letter  renewed  the  offer 

to  debate  the  matter,  which  letter  was  handed  him, 
by  a  friend  of  mine,  before  he  preached. 

About  three  days  after  he  delivered  that  sermon 
I  received  a  letter  from  him,  requesting  me  to  pub 
lisk  my  sermon,  and  very  kindly  offering  to  review 
it,  in  case  I  should  publish;  and  offered  as  an  induce 
ment  to  me,  the  following  language:  "Controversies 
when  properly  conducted,  must  always  do  good." 

I  took  no  notice  of  the  letter,  because  I  consider 
ed  it  a  fair  decline  of  my  offer;  and  because  I  have 
always  believed,  that  the  subject  could  be  brought 
home  to  those  who  are  least  informed  on  the  sub- 
ject, (and  of  consequence  most  liable  to  be  misled,) 
better  by  an  oral,  than  a  written  argument,  and  at 
less  expense  to  the  community.  In  his  'Note  to  the 
reader,'  and  in  the  commencement  of  his  sermon, 
he  has  used  my  name,  and  informs  the  reader  that 
his  discourse  was  occasioned  'by  the  excitement 
which  my  sermon  'produced  in  the  village  and  neigh- 
borhood,'' and  that  I  had  made  "an  attempt  to  prove 
that  infant  sprinUing  was  an  ordinance  of  the  New 
Testament." 

The  candid  reader  will  be  able  to  judge  how  far 
I  have  succeeded  in  the  'attempt''  in  the  following 


VUl 


pages.  I  think  it  very  likely  that  the  fifty-nine 
adults  haptized  by  pouring  in  that  place  and  its  vi- 
cinity, within  the  few  weeks  previous,  gave  that 
gentleman  more  uneasiness,  than  the  ^attempi'  at 
proving  "infant  sprinkling." 

He  takes  for  granted,  that  he  is  right  in  his  "un- 
derstanding and  practice"  of  the  ordinance — and 
that  /  am  ivrong, — and  he  sets  out  to  'counteract 
the  wrong  impressions''  that  I  may  have  made. — 
This  looks  a  little  like  begging  the  question. 

As  Mr.  B,  was  so  kind  as  to  ofTer  to  be  reviewer 
for  me,  and  was  so  kind  as  to  write  "strictures"  for 
Mr.  D.  I  suppose,  he,  least  of  all,  will  complain  of  my 
performing  the  like  kind  ojiceforhim;  as  one  *good 
turn  deserves  another'— and  I  accept  on  his  part  the 
will  for  the  deed. 

If  he  should  think  proper  to  write  again,  and 
should  produce  any  arguments  that  I  have  not  re- 
plied to,  in  these  pages,  I  shall  answer  him  in  some 
way.  But  I  give  the  reader  notice  that  /  shall  not 
write  again,  to  answer  arguments,  or  sophistry,  that 
I  have  already  replied  to. 

In  the  discussion  I  have  (so  far  as  I  knew  them) 
taken  up  all  the  arguments  used  by  the  Baptists,  and 


IX 

have  not  confined  myself  to  Mr.  B's  "sermon,"  and 
"strictures"  alone. 

While  I  am  fully  convinced  that  the  Baptists,  as 
a  denomination,  had  their  rise  in  Germany  in  1521 
or  '22,  under  Nicholas  Stork,  Muntzer,  John  of 
Leyden,  Knipperdoling,  and  others,  I  have  forborne 
giving  an  account  of  them,  as  it  is  found  in  Robin- 
son's Charles  the  V,  and  in  a  view  of  All  Religions, 
by  Ross,  published  in  London,  1664;  as  I  know  the 
matter  to  be  very  offensive  to  our  Baptist  friends; 
also  believing  it  to  be  unrighteous  to  attribute  the 
'iniquities  of  the  fathers  to  the  children.'  Although 
Mr.  B.  has  labored  hard  to  establish  the  charge  of 
heresy  against  the  founder  of  Methodism,  in  the 
matter  of  Baptismal  regeneration,  a  doctrine  which 
he  must  have  known  that  wise  and  good  man  no 
more  held  than  he  believed  that  "Thomas  Stork 
held  communion  with  God,  by  means  of  an  angel," 
yet  I  will  not  retaliate  by  recounting  the  doctrines 
and  practices  of  the  German  Anabaptists. 

Here  I  take  leave  of  this  subject,  praying  that 
God  may  keep  us  from  the  by-ways  of  error,  and 
lead  us  into  the  way  of  truth. 

HENRY  SLICER. 

Alexandria,  Oct.  7,  1835. 


PREFACE 


TO   THE   SECOND   EDITION. 


When  tlie  Appeal  was  first  put  to  press,  the  au- 
thor was  not  aware  that  the  demand  for  the  work 
would  be  more  than  to  justify  the  issuing  of  a  small 
edition;  accordingly,  a  thousand  copies  were  issued, 
nearly  all  of  which  were  disposed  of  in  a  few  weeks, 
and  another  edition  was  demanded,  with  a  request 
that  it  should  be  enlarged  in  one  or  two  parts. 

The  reception  with  which  it  met,  from  the 
candid  and  intelligent  of  different  denominations, 
not  excepting  the  Baptists,  (for  I  never  heard  of  its 
giving  much  offence  to  any  one  except  Mr.  B.)  and 
the  assurances  of  its  usefulness  which  reached  me 
from  different  parts  of  the  country,  convinced  me  of 
the  propriety  of  revising  and  enlarging  the  work, 
and  publishing  a  second  edition.  But  as  I  wished 
to  know  what  course  Mr.  Broaddus  would  take  in  the 
matter,  it  was  judged  best  to  defer  the  publication 


Xll 

of  a  future  edition,  until  he  should  either  reply,  or 
decline  any  tarther  controversy  on  the  suhject. 
After  waiting  some  time  for  an  answer,  I  learned, 
through  a  tViend,  that  he  would  reply  about  Christ- 
mas: I  looked  in  vain  to  that  period  for  an  answer, 
fur  it  passed,  and  also  the  long  month  of  January, 
and  the  cold  month  of  February,  and  the  winds  of 
March,  and  the  showers  of  April,  all  passed,  and  no 
answer  came;  and  in  the  month  of  June,  while  I 
was  just  about  to  conclude  that  Mr.  B.  had  aban- 
doned the  idea  of  answering,  a  friend  informed  me 
that  the  reply  was  then  in  press.  I  then  began  to 
reason  in  my  own  mind,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  find 
out  what  could  have  detained  the  answer  for  seven 
long  months,  and  upon  reflection  I  recollected  that 
the  Upperville  sermon,  althoufrh  delivered  the  Sab- 
bath before  winter,  was  not  issued  from  the  press 
until  the  ice  and  snow  of  the  cold  season  had  all 
melted,  and  the  singing  of  birds  was  heard  in  the 
land;  and  what  makes  this  the  more  remarkable,  is, 
the  fact  that  his  note  to  the  reader  is  dated  Dec'r, 
1S34: — has  this  all  been  the  result  of  accident?  or 
does  not  Mr.  Broaddus  know  that  an  argument  for 
immersion  stands  but  little  chance  of  exerting  a 
proselyting  influence  in  mid-winter?     But  be  this  as 


Xlll 

it  may,  one  would  think  that  if  "he  found  (as  he 
says  1»  did)  that  my  bold  assertions  were  likely  to 
pass  for  sound  argument  with  some,  who  lacked 
either  capacity  or  leisure  to  examine  for  themselves; 
while  the  serious  imputations  I  had  cast  upon  his 
motives,  were  likely  to  awaken  suspicions  in  a  com- 
munity but  little  acquainted  with  him,  unfavorable 
to  his  reputation;''  surely  he  should  have  hastened 
to  the  rescue  of  his  favorite  theory,  from  the  hands  of 
those  'bold  assertions'  and  from  those  'who  lacked  ca- 
pacity or  leisure  to  examine  for  themselves,'  and  es- 
pecially to  have  silenced  all  'suspicion  unfavorable  to 
his  reputation;'  and  more  especially,  "as  he  soon 
found  that  some  of  my  readers  were  inclined  to  attri- 
bute his  silence  to  a  consciousness  of  guilt,"  page  59. 
And  yet  strange  to  tell,  this  gentleman  defers  his 
answer  for  seven  months.  Perhaps  he  thought  that 
the  impression  that  my  ^hold  assertions,''  made  last 
fall  with  regard  to  the  ordinance,  would,  with  the 
aid  of  a  little  time,  become  erased  from  the  minds 
of  the  good  people  of  Virginia,  who  were  destitute 
of  ^capacity  or  leisure  to  examine  for  themselves' — 
and  that  he  could  repeat  over  the  arguments,  I  will 
not  say  'bold  assertions,'  of  his  strictures  and  ser- 
mon, and  utter  his  complaints  long  and  loud,  about 


XIV 

being  'misquoted,  'misrepresented,'  his  'motives 
impugned,'  'personal  defamation,'  <^c.  &c.  and  thus 
hide  himself  in  the  smoke  of  his  own  raising.  And 
if  he  did  not  succeed  in  slaying  'Goliath,'  he  would 
at  least  show   the  community,  that 

"Although  vanquished,  he  can  argue  still." 

I  promised  the  candid  reader  not  to  answer  'argu- 
ments or  sophistry  that  I  had  already  replied  to.' 
I  shall,  in  a  Further  Appeal,  however,  take  such  no- 
tice of  Mr.  B's  twenty-one  letters,  as  I  may  think 
them  entitled  to. 

I  confess  I  expected  when  I  wrote,  that  3Ir.  B. 
would  reply,  for  I  knew  that  those  who  have  vanity 
enough  to  compare  themselves  to  the  warrior  David, 
page  42,  would  make  o  show  of  fg'ht,  although 
there  might  be,  in  reality,  neither  a  sling  in  his 
hand,  nor  a  -s/nooth  stone  left  in  the  shepherd's  bag;'' 
they  would  fancy  too,  that  they  heard  the  death- 
groan  of  the  giant,  and  that  they  had  given  his 
head  to  the  host  of  Israel,  and  his  carcase  to  the 
fowls  of  heaven — to  the  vultures  of  course. 

But  in  all  seriousness,  (speaking  without  a  figure.) 
I  was  surprised  that  the  gentleman  should  show  so 
much  morbid  sensibility,  and  that  he  should  take  up 
so  much  of  his  letters  in  attempts  to  excite  the  sym- 


XV 

pathy  of  the  public  for  the  much  injured  man. 
Could  not  the  candid  reader  judge,  whether  my 
weapons  were  those  of  ^personal  defamation''  and 
^sarcasm,^  or  those  of  scriptural  argument,  and 
sober  reason?  Did  Mr.  B.  fear  that  the  candid 
reader  had  not  'capacity'  to  see  that  1  was  'almost 
a  stranger  to  the  use  of  all  weapons,  except  ^sar- 
casm and  personal  defamation,''  that  it  became  ne- 
cessary for  him  in  his  'note  to  the  reader,'  to  inform 
him  of  it?  I  sought,  (as  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  would  admit,)  to  use  ^soft  words'  and  '■hard  ar- 
guments.'' If,  however,  1  had  known  that  Mr.  B. 
was  'a  man  of  extra-^ ordinary  sensibility,^  I  might 
have  used  ^soft  arguments''  and  'hard  words,'  which 
might  have  been  more  acceptable  to  the  gentleman 
on  several  accounts,  for  certainly  the  •  intelligent 
reader  will  see  that  Mr.  B.  is  no  novice  in  those  at 
the  present,  and  with  a  little  more  practice,  he 
might  become  an  adept,  both  in  the  use  of  'soft 
arguments^  and  'hard  words  ' 

But  I  will  not  rail,  but  leave  the  gentleman  to  di- 
gest his  own  spleen. 

I  shall  not  promise  to  demonstrate  any  thing, 
either  in  regard  to  my  own  innocency,  or  the  good- 
ness of  my  cause,  I  shall  leave  to  the  candid  reader 


XVI 

the  task  of  making  up  a  jiidgiuent  for  himself,  both 
with  regard  to  the  subject  and  the  writer.  It  may- 
have  been  as  well  for  Mr.  B.  to  have  put  a  promise 
in  his  ^note  to  the  reader"^  that  he  will  demonstrate 
his  'own  innocency,'  and  lliat  my  'views  of  bap- 
tism are  altogether  without  foundation  in  the  word 
of  God' — as  it  is  possible  many  of  his  readers  may 
not  be  able  to  see  the  demonstration  of  either ^  in 
the  body  of  his  work. 

Having  carefully  read  -Mr.  B's  letters,  1  am  more 
than  ever  convinced  that  the  views  of  baptism  held 
by  our  baptist  friends,  cannot  be  maintained. 

All  I  ask  of  you,  intelligent  reader,  is  a  candid 
examination  of  this  revised  and  enlarged  'Appeal,' 
with  tlie  'Further  Appeal,'  and  I  shall  have  no 
anxLety  for  the  issue.  'I  speak  as  uiito  wise  men — 
judge  ye  what  I  say.' 

HENRY  SLICER. 

Georgetown,  D.  C\  July,  1836. 


%-^*^ 


BAPTISM. 


:# 


Tn  calling  public  attention  to  the  subject  of  Chris- 
tian Baptism,  we  wish  to  declare  plainly  and  fullv, 
our  views,  without  intending  to  offend  any;  and  not 
expecting  to  give  offence  to  the  liberal  and  candid, 
who,  while  they  claim  the  right  to  think,  and  ac- 
cording to  their  best  light  entertain  and  express 
their  opinions,  accord  to  others  cordially,  the  same 
which  they  claim  for  themselves. 

In  the  arguments  which  we  may  adduce  on  the 
subject,  it  is  not  our  design  so  much  to  prove  that 
others  are  not  right,  as  to  prove  that  we  are  not 
wrong. 

And  if  when  we  have  gone  through  the  argu- 
ment, we  shall  have  failed  to  convince  you  that  ours 
is  the  'more  excellent  way,'  we  shall  not  think  you 
any  the  worse  Christians,  unless  in  the  spirit  of 
bigotry  you  should  unchristian  others,  who  may  not 
agree  with  you  in  their  doctrines,  and  usages.  For 
we  conceive,  that  no  views  of  doctrine,  or  of  the  or- 


IS 

dinances,  however  correct,  can  save  any  man,  unless 
he  be  spiritually  regenerated.  For  "neither  circum- 
cision availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a 
new  creature.'^'' 

Many  who  have  been  as  orthodox  as  an  apostle, 
and  have  received  the  rite  of  baptism,  have  proved 
themselves  to  be  but  "baptized  infidels,  washed  to 
fouler  stains." 

Having  said  thus  much,  we  shall  proceed  to  speak, 
First,  of  the  Obligation  and  Perpetuity — 
Secondly,  of  the  Subjects — 
And  thirdly,  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 

The  Oblig\tiox  and  Perpetuity  of  Christian 
Baptism. 

On  this  part  of  the  subject,  we  and  our  Baptist 
friends  have  no  controversy — as  we  agree  alike  to 
assert,  and  maintain  the  obligation  of  the  ordinance. 
But  there  have  been  many,  bearing  the  name  of 
Christ,  who  look  upon  the  subject  with  indifference, 
and  others  who  argue  against  it,  saying,  that  it  is  a 
^carnal  ordinance,''  and  ought  long  since  to  have  be- 
come extinct  in  the  church  of  Christ.  And  in  sup- 
port of  their  views  they  adduce  several  passages  of 
scripture,  and  maintain  that  the  baptism  of  the  spirit 


19 

supersedes  the  necessity  of  water  baptism.  The 
views  of  such  have  grown,  in  part,  out  of  the  fact  that 
our  Baptist  friends  generally  have  confounded  Chris- 
tian baptism  with  the  baptism  of  John,  whereas  the 
two  should  be  considered  entirely  distinct,  as  we 
hope  to  be  able  to  show  hereafter.  The  two  passages 
on  which  such  asdeny  the  obligation  of  baptism  main- 
ly rely,  are  to  be  found,  John  iii,  30, — "^e  must  in- 
crease, but  Imust  decrease,''^  and  1  Cor.  i,  17, — ^^For 
Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel,''''  They  conclude  from  the  passage  in  John,  that 
as  he  was  to  decrease  as  Christ  increased,  therefore 
baptism  ought  to  have  ceased  in  the  church  centuries 
since.  The  conclusion  is  good  from  the  premises,  but 
the  premises  are  false,  and  the  conclusion  is  therefore 
good  for  nothing;  for  in  the  same  chapter  you  will 
find  John's  disciples  informing  him  that  Christ  was 
baptizing,  and  all  men  were  flocking  to  him;  and 
John  said  'I  am  not  the  Christ,'  *I  came  to  bear 
witness  of  him.'  'He  must  increase,  I  must  de- 
crease,' consequently  we  hear  nothing  of  John's  bap- 
tism after  he  was  beheaded,  only  that  St.  Paul  re- 
baptized  some  at  Ephesus,  who  had  previously  re- 
ceived John's  baptism.    See  Acts  xix,  1  to  7.  John 

received  a  temporary  commission  to  herald  the  ap- 
3* 


20 

proach  of  the  Messiah,  and  his  kingdom;  and  bap- 
tizing the  people  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
taught  them  to  believe  on  him  who  was  to  come; — 
i.  e.  on  Christ  Jesus.  And  so  little  were  the  dis- 
ciples at  Ephesus  acquainted  with  Christianity  in 
its  doctrines  or  spirit,  that  they  had  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  was  any  Holy  Ghost. 

We  request  you  to  refer  to  the  passage  and  read 
it  attentively,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  quote  it 
again  in  the  course  of  the  argument.  Tiie  view  we 
have  given  of  John's  baptism,  we  are  happy  to  find, 
supported  by  that  able  and  distinguished  minister  of 
the  Baptist  church,  Robert  Hall,  of  England — See 
his  Works,  vol.  1st,  page  372 — His  words  are— 
"No  rite  celebrated  during  the  ministry  of  John,  is 
entitled  to  a  place  among  Christian  sacraments.'' 
It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  most  of  his  less 
intelligent  brethren,  differ  with  Mr.  Hall  in  opinion. 
Some  of  them  have  maintained  from  the  pulpit,  and 
others  from  the  press,  that  John's  was  Christian 
baptism.  On  this  point  the  Rev.  Mr.  Broaddus 
seems  not  as  yet,  to  have  made  up  an  opinion.  See 
Sermon,  page  34. 

The  other  passage  (quoted  from  Corinthians)  will 
be  found  upon  examination,  not  to  weigh  against  the 


21 

obligation  of  the  ordinance.  A  faction  had  arisen 
in  the  church  at  Corinth,  the  apostle  was  informed 
that  they  had  raised  parties,  and  had  used  his  name, 
and  the  names  of  his  friends  Apollos  and  Cephas. 
He  writes  them  a  severe  letter,  remonstrating 
against  their  course,  and  asks  "Is  Christ  divided  ? 
Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  /  baptized 
none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gaius:'' — And  why? 
he  immediately  assigns  the  reason,  "Lest  any  should 
say  that  I  had  baptized  in  mine  own  name.'' — "  For 
Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,"  &;c.  (i.e.)  my  main, 
and  most  important  business  is  to  preach  the  gospel 
He  did  baptize  some  as  you  learn  from  the  context  — 
and  it  is  certain  that  he  baptized  others,  in  other 
places,  as  the  twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus,  &;c.  But 
as  a  wise  master  builder,  he  had  learned  to  give  to 
things  severally,  the  importance  due  to  them. 

Having  thus  shown  that  these  texts  lie  not  against 
the  obligation  of  the  ordinance, — we  must  remark, 
that  as  Christ  gave  a  command  to  the  apostles, 
after  his  resurrection,  to  disciple  all  nations,  by  bap- 
tizing and  teaching  them;  with  the  promise  to  be 
with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world;  and  as  that  com- 
mand has  neither  been  revoked,  nor  complied  with 


22 

to  its  full  extent,  the  obligation  still  rests  upon  the 
ministry  to  administer  the  rite,  and  upon  the  nations 
to  submit  to  it.  And  futhermore,  when  the  apos- 
tles went  forth  in  obedience  to  the  above  command, 
whenever  and  wherever  the  word  took  effect  upon 
the  hearers,  and  they  were  willing  to  receive  Christy 
the  apostles  dedicated  them,  if  Jews,  to  Jesus,  as 
the  true  Messiah,  and,  if  Gentiles, to  the  true  God — 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  three  thousand 
cried  out  "Men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do?" — 
(although  in  all  probability  many  of  them  had  been 
baptized  by  John;)  Peter  said,  "repent  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

And  when  Peter  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
to  the  Gentiles,  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  as  he  had 
done  to  the  Jews,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  while  he 
was  speaking,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  the  congrega- 
tion. Acts  X,  44  to  4S.  "Then  answered  Peter, 
can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
well  as  we?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord."     Will  any  one  in 


23 

view  of  this  evidence  still  assert  that  water  baptism 
is  not  obligatory.  Those  who  maintain  that  the 
baptism  of  the  spirit  supersedes  the  necessity  of 
the  baptism  of  water,  differ  in  judgment  with  the 
apostle  Peter.  And  you,  my  reader,  can  judge 
whose  opinion  is  entitled  to  most  deference;  the  in- 
spired apostles,  who  received  the  command  at  the 
mouth  of  Christ,  or  one,  or  many  at  this  late  period, 
who  are  not  under  the  infallible  inspiration  of  the 
spirit;  as  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  those  who 
deny  the  obligation  of  baptism,  disagree  among  them- 
selves, upon  the  most  important  points  in  Christian 
theology. 

It  will  be  in  vain  to  say,  that  the  ordinance  has 
been  abused,  by  having  too  much  stress  laid  upon  it; 
for  the  abuse  of  a  good  thing,  is  not  a.  valid  argu- 
ment against  its  use.  "I  speak  as  unto  wise  men^ 
judge  ye  what  I  say." 

Ox  THE  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

We  shall  now  present  for  your  consideration.,  and 
judgment,  our  views  in  answer  to  the  question,  who 
are  the  proper  subjects  of  the  ordinance  ? 

Before  I  enter  fully  into  this  part  of  the  subject, 
I  beg  your  serious,  and  candid  attention,  to  two  im- 


24 

portant  prelinjiiiary  considerations,  namely,  that  as 
there  is  but  one  true  God,  and  one  true  faith,  so  this 
true  God,  has  never  had  more  than  one  church  in 
the  world,  trom  the  day  that  pious  Abel  by  faith 
offered  an  acceptable  sacrifice,  to  the  present  hour. 
I  am  aware  that  this  principle  has  been  disputed, 
but  I  take  my  firm  stand  upon  the  truth  of  God,  and 
shall  maintain  this  view,  without  fear  of  successful 
contradiction,  [n  the  sermon  of  Mr.  B.  page  14,  he 
says,  "The  truth  is,  there  never  was  a  risible  church 
of  Christ  on  earth,  until  he  came  and  established  it 
himself"  There  was  a  visible  Church  of  Christ  be- 
fore his  coming  as  really,  as  there  has  been  since;  as 
is  evident  from  Acts  vii,  3S — '-This  is  he  that  was  in 
the  CHURCH  in  the  wilderness,  with  the  axgel," 
— compared  with  Exodus  xxiii,  20,  21 — "Behold 
I  send  an  angel  before  thee,  6:c.,  provoke  him  not, 
for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions,'' — com- 
pared with  1  Cor.  X,  4  and  9 — "And  did  all  drink 
the  same  spiritual  drink;  for  they  drank  of  that  spir- 
itual rock  that  followed  them;  and  that  rock  was 
Christ,"  "Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of 
them  also  tempted,  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents." 
It  is  clear  from  these  passages,  1st,  that  God  had  a 
church  in  the  wilderness:  2d,  that  the  angel  spoken 


25 

of  as  having  power  to  pardon  sin,  was  Christ;  3d, 
that  he  was  with  the  church;  4th,  that  him  they 
tempted,  and  fell  under  his  retributive  administra- 
tion. 

In  all  the  scriptures  of  the  Old,  and  New  Testa- 
ments, the  province  of  reading  men's  hearts,  is  as- 
cribed to  God  alone,  and  consequently,  he  alone  can 
tell  with  infallible  certainty,  who  are,  and  who  are 
not,  members  of  the  invisible  church  of  God.  But, 
so  far  as  man  can  judge  from  those  actions  which 
are  an  index  to  the  hearts  of  men,  we  should  con- 
clude that  such  as  Zachariah  and  Elizabeth,  Simeon 
and  Anna,  under  the  Jewish  economy,  were  really 
members,  constituting  a  visible  church;  especially  as 
we  have  the  testimony  of  God,  to  their  guileless,  and 
scriptural  piety.  If  Mr.  B.  means  to  say,  that  no 
church  is  a  visible  church,  that  has  unworthy  mem- 
bers in  it,  then  indeed,  there  never  was  a  visible 
church  of  Christ  on  earth,  even  in  the  brightest  pe- 
riod of  the  church's  history.  Was  the  church  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  a  visible  church  of  Christ,  any 
more  than  the  Jewish  church  had  been,  when  among 
the  baptized  were  seen  Judas,  Demas,  Simon  Magus, 
and  others  ?  But  if  Mr.  B.  means  to  say  that  the 
church  of  God  and  the  church  of  Christ  were  two. 


26 

then  we  ask  how  he  can  maintain  such  a  view,  with- 
out denying  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  or  the  essen- 
tial divinity  of  Christ.  There  was  one  church  pur- 
chased by  the  blood  of  Christ, — x\cts  xx,  38 — 
"  Feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  (Christ,  the 
true  God)  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.'' 
Which  church  was  this  ?  I  answer  the  flock  of  God, 
embracing  his  people,  in  every  age,  and  under  every 
dispensation. 

Hence,  Christ  is  called,  "a  lamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world.''  See  Rev.  vii,  9,  16;  xiii, 
8.  This  church  is  sometimes  called  "a  temple"  or 
"building,"  then,  Christ  is  the  "corner  stone." 
"The  foundation."  Eph.  ii,  20,  and  1  Cor.  iii,  11. 
And  we  learn  from  Isaiah,  the  prophet,  who  wrote 
seven  hundred  years  before  the  opening  of  the  gos- 
pel dispensation,  that  this  "tried  stone,"  this  "pre- 
cious corner  stone,''  was  laid  in  Zion  for.  a  founda- 
tion— Isaiah  xxviii,  16.  This  is  "the  stone,  elect, 
precious,"  on  whom  whosoever  believed,  was  not 
confounded.     1  Peter  ii,  6. 

This  church  is  again  called  "a  flock"  or  "sheep- 
fold" — "He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd,  and 
carry  the  lambs  in  his  bosom.''  In  Jeremiah  xxiii,  1 
to  6,  this  flock  is  spoken  of,  and  comforted  with  the 


27 

promise  of  better  days,  under  pastors  that  should 
care  for  them,  and  feed  them.  This  prediction  was 
fulfilled  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  And  in  direct 
allusion  to  this,  and  similar  passages,  he  said,  "  I 
lay  down  my  hfe  for  the  sheep:"  "other  sheep  T 
have  which  are  not  of  this  (Jewish)  fold,  them  must 
I  bring,  and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
herd." You  hear  one  of  those  sheep  saying,  under 
a  former  dispensation,  "The  Lord  is  my  shepherd, 
I  shall  not  want."  See  Psalm  xxii,  1,  2,  3.  David's 
Lord  was  Christ,  see  Psalm  ex,  1,  and  Matt,  xxii, 
44, — again  the  church  is  called  a  "family;" — one 
family^  not  two  or  more.  See  Eph.  iii,  15, — "Of 
whom  the  whole  family,  in  heaven  and  earth  is 
named.  Sectarian  bigotry,  either  among  Jews  or 
Christians,  would  like  to  make  partitions  in  this 
building  of  God, — or  divisions  in  this  immense  fam- 
ily; but  the  liberal  minded  Paul,  who  had  com- 
pleted his  education  in  the  "third  heaven,"  had 
learned,  that  the  true  God  had  but  one  family  in  the 
universe.  In  the  11th  chap,  of  Hebrews,  we  have 
the  names  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished  mem- 
bers of  this  family,  from  the  first  martyr  Abel, 
down  to  the  venerable  and  faithful  Samuel,  who  from 

a    child    of  three   years    old,  had    been    actively 
4 


28 

and    publicly    engaged     in    the    service     of    this 
church. 

Jesus,  speaking  of  the  Gentiles,  says,  "They  shall 
come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  the  prophets  in  the  king- 
dom of  God."  Whether  you  interpret  the  phrase 
"kingdom  of  God''  to  mean  that  part  of  the  family 
which  is  on  earth,  or  that  part  which  is  in  heaven, 
either  will  answer  our  purpose.  We  thank  God 
"Our  father  who"  is  "in  heaven,"  that  he  has  but 
one  family,  and  has  constituted  of  angels  and  re 
deemed  men,  one  vast  brotherhood.  See  Rev.  vii, 
9  to  17. 

Again,  the  church  is  called  in  Rom.  xi,  24, — "A 
good  olive  tree.''  And  although  some  of  the 
branches  were  broken  off,  for  unbelief,  the  olive  was 
never  rooted  up;  but  on  that  stock  the  Gentiles  were 
grafted,  and  the  apostles  informed  the  Jews,  that 
they  should  be  grafted  in  again,  if  they  abode  not  in 
unbelief.  We  admit,  there  were,  from  time  to  time, 
circumstiuitial  differences  in  the  churcli  of  God,  un- 
der different  dispensations,  but  her  identity  has 
been  always  maintained.  She  has  been,  and  still  is, 
substantially  the  same.  She  was  once  a  family 
church,  then  a  national  church,  and  subsequently  a 


29 

universal  churcli.  She  once  looked  forth  as  the 
morning,  was  afterwards  fair  as  the  moon,  and 
finally,  clear  as  the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with 
banners.  From  the  dawn  of  her  morning,  to  her 
meridian  splendor,  she  leaned  upon  her  beloved 
"Christ."  The  furniture  of  this  temple  has  been 
altered.  Some  of  the  branches  of  this  olive  tree 
broken  off.  But  the  temple's  beauty  is  not  marred. 
And  the  "root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree"  still 
remain. 

In  conclusion,  we  remark,  from  the  time  the  cove- 
nant of  mercy  was  intimated  to  Adam  and  Eve,  in 
the  garden  of  Eden,  down  to  the  call  of  Abraham, 
and  to  the  confirming  of  that  covenant  with  him,  see 
Gen.  xvii,  2,  and  Gal.  iii,  17, — and  from  that  to  the 
giving  of  the  law  430  years  after;  and  from  that  to 
the  coming  of  Christ;  and  from  his  advent  until 
noic,  men  have  been  justified,  sanctified,  and  for  ever 
saved,  in  the  same  way,  and  under  the  auspices  of  the 
same  covenant  of  mercy.  For  this  is  the  ^'-covenant 
confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,^''  Gal.  iii,  13  to  20. — 
"He  was  made  a  curse  for  us,"  "that  the  blessing 
of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles,  through 
Jesus  Christ,"  that  we  might  receive  "the  promise 
of  the  spirit  through   faith."     Our  Baptist  friends 


30 

contend  that  this  covenant,  of  which  circumcision 
was  the  sign  and  seal,  contained  only  the  grant  of 
the  earthly  Canaan  to  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham. 
But  surely,  the  apostle  understood  the  matter  in  an 
entirely  diSerent  sense,  for  he  says,  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  was  to  come  on  the  Gentiles,  and  that  they 
were  to  receive  the  promise  of  the  spirit,  by  faith. 
This  is  precisely  w^hat  Peter  refers  to,  (i.  e.)  "the 
promise  of  the  spirit,''  when  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, referring  to  the  charter  of  the  gospel  church, 
he  says:  "the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your 
children,''  &c.  Acts  ii,  33  and  39.  And  in  giving 
an  account  of  the  falling  of  the  spirit  on  Cornelius 
and  his  family,  he  says.  Acts  xi,  17.  "Forasmuch 
then,  as  God  gave  them  (the  Gentiles)  the  like  gift, 
as  he  did  unto  us,  (Jews,)  who  believed  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;  what  was  I,  that  1  could  withstand 
God?"  Here  you  see  in  Christ,  according  to  the 
language  of  the  covenant,  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  were  to  be  blessed. 

St.  Paul  says;  "The  scriptures  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preach- 
ed before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham."  Gal.  iii,  8. 
This  promise,  referred  to  above,  the  promise  of 
mercy  and  grace,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  t'uee  and  to  thy 


31 

seed,"  was  ordained  in  the  hands  of  a  mediator;  and 
when  this  mediator  appeared,  we  find  that  a  com- 
pany of  Jewish  shepherds,  and  a  company  of  Gen- 
tile philosopliers,  ahke  present  themselves  at  his 
shrine,  as  the  representatives  of  the  two  great  divi- 
sions of  the  family  of  man;  as  the  "first  fruits  of 
the  fast  coming  harvest"  of  the  world  to  Christ. 

When  Jesus  looked  over  the  Samaritan  people, 
he  said  to  the  apostles,  "Say  not  three  months  and 
then  Cometh  harvest,  lift  up  your  eyes  and  look  on 
the  fields,  for  they  are  white  already  to  harvest." 
"Other  men  (patriarchs  and  prophets)  have  labored 
and  ye  have  entered  into  their  labors."  John  iv,  35, 
38.  The  church  has  always  been  "God's  hus- 
bandry" as  well  as  "God's  building,"  and  the  fields 
had  been  under  culture  for  4000  years.  Although 
the  state  of  morals  in  the  visible  church  at  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  was  greatly  sunken,  Jesus  said  to  his 
disciples,  "The  scribes  and  pharisees  sit  in  Moses's 
seat,  therefore,  whatsoever  they  command  you,  that 
observe  and  do,  but  do  ye  not  according  to  their 
v)0'rJcs,  for  they  say,  and  do  not."  And  of  this  visi- 
ble church,  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus  were  both 
members,  as  also  his  apostles.     For  in  addition  to 

the  observance  of  the   right  of  circumcision,  they 

4* 


32 

kept  the  passover,  up  to  the  eve  of  Christ's  appre- 
hension and  crucifixion.  The  true  state  of  the  case 
seems  to  be  this.  When  the  Messiah,  "the  promis- 
ed seed,"  the  mediator  of  the  (Abrahamic)  cove- 
nant,'''' "the  minister  of  the  true  tabernacle,"  ap- 
peared and  presented  his  chiims,  those  of  the  visible 
church,  who  admitted  his  Messiahship,  and  were 
gathered  to  the  Shiloh,  were  continued  in  the  true 
and  good  ohve,  and  those  who  rejected  him,  were 
broken  off.  "The  children  of  the  visible  kingdom 
were  cast  out,  the  rite  of  circumcision  gave  way  to 
the  rife  of  baptism  and  the  passover  was  superseded 
by  the  institution  of  the  LorcVs  supper.  See  1  Cor, 
v,  7.  Our  Baptist  friends  admit  this  so  far  as  adults 
are  concerned.  It  is  true  however,  that  Mr.  B.  in 
his  Strictures,  pages  4  and  5,  intimates  very  strongly 
that  circumcision  has  never  been  discontinued  by  an 
"express  command,''  His  words  are  "Why  not 
both  circumcize  and  baptize  them?  You  have  never 
had  any  '•express  command'*  to  discontinue  the  one, 
and  practice  the  other."  Now,  candid  reader,  al- 
though Mr.  B.  may  not  be  able  to  see  in  God's  word 
any  passage  abrogating  circumcision,  yet  you  will 
see  one  in  which  it  is  set  forth  if  you  will  look  at 
Acts  XV,  1,  2,  5,   10,  28,  29.     And  we  learn  from 


S3 

ActsS  xvi,  4,  That  Paul,  Silas,  and  Timotheus,  went 
through  the  churches,  dehverino;  the  decrees  to  them 
on  this  suhject;  and  the  decree  on  the  'discontinuing 
of  circumcision'  was  the  result  of  the  judgment  of  a 
council  of  apostles  and  elders,  confirmed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. — See  the  passage  above  referred  to. 

And  in  confirmation  of  the  fact,  that  baptism  came 
in  the  place  of  circumcision,  the  Apostle  calls  bap- 
tism the  "circumcision  of  Christ."  Colos.  ii,  11,  12. 
And  I  am  supported  in  this  opinion  by  one  of  Mr. 
B's  witnesses,  'The  great  Whitby,  (as  he  calls  him, 
— and  I  suppose  if  the  testimony  o(  the  witness  is 
good  for  Air.  B.,  his  testimony  will  be  as  good  for 
me  against  Mr.  B. — Let  us  hear  the  witness,)  says, 
"■The  apostle  speaking  hereof  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  and  of  the  circnmcision  made  in  bap- 
tism, and  consisting  in  the  putting  off  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  cannot,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  mean  his 
own  personal  circumcision,  ivhich  was  made  with 
hands,  but  that  which  he  hath  instituted  in  the  room 
of  it,  viz.  baptism.  That  baptism,  therefore.,  is  a 
rite  of  initiation  to  the  Christians  as  circumcision 
was  to  the  Jeirs.'^'' — See  Whitby  on  the  place. 

Who  doubts  that  circumcision  was  the  initiatinxr 
rite  amon<j;  the  Jews,   and  in  the  church,  from    the 


34 

day  when  Abraham  was  ninety -nine,  and  Ishmael, 
thirteen  years  old.  For  as  our  Lord  said,  "Circum- 
cision was  not  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers."  And 
if  baptism  is  not  the  initiating  rite,  the  seal  and  sign 
of  the  covenant  of  mercy,  the  church,  under  the 
Gospel,  has  no  initiatory  rite. 

But  Mr.  B.  page  17,  supposes  that  "the  coming 
of  the  promised   seed,  (the    Messiah,)  put   an  end 
however,   to  the  Abrahamic   covenant,  and  conse 
quently  to  all  its  ordinances,  forever.''     Shocking 
that  men  should  be  willing  to  disannul  the  only  cov 
enant  of  mercy  and  grace  from  God  to  man,  a  cov 
enant  that  embraced  the  promise  of  Messiah,  and  the 
blessing  of  all   nations  through  him;  in  order  the 
more  effectually  to    deprive  unoffending  infants  of 
the  rights   Mdiich  they  had  enjoyed  unmolested  for 
about  2000  years. — Under  what  covenant,  pray,  do 
such  conclude   themselves?     "Christ    was   made  a 
curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  might 
come  on  us  through  faith." — How,  then,  I  ask,  can 
the  covenant  be  done  away,  and  its  blessings  still  en- 
joyed by  Jews  and  Gentiles?     I  hope  it  will  not  be 
said,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  is  the  possession 
of  the  earthly  Canaan.     God  made  two  covenant's 
with  Abraham,  one  before  the  birth  of  Ishmael,  see 


35 

Gen.  xv,  7 — 21.  In  this  was  contained  the  grant  of 
the  earthly  Canaan^  to  his  natural  seed,  through  the 
line  of  Ibaac  and  Jacob.  This  covenant  was  ratified 
by  the  passing  of  a  burning  lamp,  and  a  smoking 
furnace,  between  the  pieces  of  slain  beasts  which 
Abram  had  provided,  while  a  "horror  of  thick  dark- 
ness fell  upon  Abram,"  emblematical,  or  typical,  of 
the  hard  bondage  which  his  natural  seed  should  en- 
dure in  Egypt.  The  metes  and  bounds  of  their  in- 
heritance were  distinctly  marked  out.  This  cove- 
nant received  not  its  full  accomplishment  until  the 
days  of  David.  See  Acts  vii,  45, — 2  Sam.  viii,  3, 
&c.  and  2  Chron.  ix,  26. 

About  14  years  afterwards  God  changed  the 
name  of  Abram,  to  that  o^  Abraham;  see  Gen.  xvii, 
5 — 27,  and  havinoj  said  in  regard  to  the  first  cove- 
nant,  chap,  xii,  2,  '  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  na- 
tion,'''' he  now  says,  chap,  xviii,  4,  5,  "Thou  shalt  be 
?L father  of  many  nations."  This  last  is  called  by 
way  of  eminence,  "The  Covenant."  Of  this  cov- 
enant, circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal. 

I  ask  the  candid  reader  to  put  the  statements  of 
Mr.  B.  on  the  subject  of  this  covenant,  in  contact 
with  the  testimony  of  Zacharias,  the  father  of  John 
the  Baptist.     When  John  was  eight  days  old,  and 


they  were  about  to  perform  upon  the  ^unconscious 
infanf  the  rite  of  circumcision — about  to  put  upon 
him  the  seal  of  the  Ahrahamic  covenant,  the 
tongue  of  Zacharias  was  loosed,  and  being  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  uttered  the  following  language — 
"Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  cf  Israel,  for  he  hcdh  visited  and 
redeemed  his  people.  And  hath  raised  up  a  horn  of  sal- 
vation for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant  David;  as  he 
spake  hy  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophds,  ivhich  have  been 
since  the  ivorld  began:  that  we  should  be  saved  from  our 
enemies,  and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us;  to  per- 
form the  mercy  promised  to  onr  fathers,  and  to  remember 
his  Holy  Covenant;  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  fa- 
ther Abraham,  that  he  loould  grant  unto  us,  that  we  being 
delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  our  enemies,  might  serve  him 
ivithoutfear,  in  holiness  and  lighteousness  before  him,  all 
the  days  of  our  life.''^     Sec  Luke  i,  67  to  80. 

Do  these  words  even  intimate  that  the  advent  of 
the  Mesaiah  ^would  put  an  end  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenantV  as  Mr.  B.  says  above.  And  does  Zach- 
arias celebrate  the  abolition  of  this  covenant?  Does 
he  not  rather  bless  God  for  the  manifestation  of  the 
^mercy  promised''  and  the  bestowment  of  those  im- 
portant blessings  included  in  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant? To  remember  his  holy  covenant,  as  a  cove- 
nant-keeping God,  is  to  give  to  those  who  have  'tak- 


37 

en  hold  of  his  covenant'  those  immunities  vouchsafed 
in  this  contract  or  stipulation. 

The  intelligent  reader  will  perceive  that  Zacha- 
rias  never  intimates  that  the  possession  of  the  earth- 
ly Canaan,  was  any  part  of  the  blessings,  embraced 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  The  -mercy  prom- 
ised to  our  fathers,  embraced  all  ^spiritual  blessings 
in  Christ  Jesus:  and  only  embraced  temporal  good 
secondarily. 

The  temporal  advantages  connected  with  circum- 
cision, were  restricted  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  ac- 
cordino-  to  tlie  llesh,  through  the  line  of  Isaac.  We 
read  that  "Abraham  took  Ishmael,  his  son,  and  all 
that  were  born  in  his  house,  and  all  that  were  bought 
with  his  money,  every  male  of  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, and  circumcised  the  flesh  of  their  foreskin,  in 
the  self-same  day,  as  God  had  said  unto  him."  The 
circumcision  of  these  persons  entailed  upon  them  no 
right  to  the  land  of  Canaan;  nor  did  the  circumcision 
of  slaves  in  after  times,  procure  them  either  civil 
liberty,  or  landed  property;  they  must  therefore  have 
received  some  spiritual  privileges,  or  they  gained 
nothing  by  the  rite.  Mr.  B.  says,  page  16  of  his 
Sermon,  ^^We  know  that  Esau  and  Ishmael,  and 
others,  descendants  of  Abraham ^icere  rejected  from 


38 

the  covenant  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ.  Then 
their  circumcision  was  a  solemn  mockery." 

How  can  he  know  this,  when,  according  to  his 
own  showing,  the  covenant  of  salvation  was  not  of- 
fered to  them,  and  the  only  covenant  of  which  they 
knew  any  thing,  was  purely  of  a  temporal  nature] 
Hence  he  says,  page  16 — "Every  one  of  Abraham's 
natural  descendants  might  have  been  sons  of  perdition, 
and  yet  all  the  ends  proposed  (by  the  covenant) 
might  have  been  accomplished."  Candid  reader, 
can  you  credit  such  views?  "1  speak  as  unto  wise 
men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

That  Gentiles  derived  spiritual  privileges  from 
circumcision,  is  clearly  evident  from  Isaiah  Ivi,  6, 
7,  "Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger,  that  join  themselves 
to  the  Lord  to  serve  him, — and  taketh  hold  of  my 
covenant;  even  them  will  I  bring  to  my  holy  moun- 
tain, and  make  them  joyful  in  my  house  of  prayer; 
their  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  shall  be  accepted 
upon  mine  altar,"  &;c. 

As  the  covenant  is  called  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision, no  uncircumcised  person  could  take  hold  of  it; 
nor  was  it  permitted  to  any  one,  who  had  not  re- 
ceived the  sign  of  the  covenant,  to  enter  into  the 
temple  and  engage  in  its  sacred  services.     The  per- 


39 

sons  mentioned  in  the  text  therefore  were  circurW- 
cised  Gentiles,  and  all  the  immunities  which  they 
enjoyed,  as  here  enumerated,  were  of  a  purely  relig- 
ious nature. 

The  apostle  Paul,  who  was  well  acquainted  with 
this  whole  subject,  has  spoken,  we  think,  in  a  way 
calculated  to  settle  the  question,  Rom.  iii,  1,  2,  3, — 
"What  PROFIT  is  there  of  circumcision?'' — The 
answer  is, — "Much  every  way;  chiefly,  because 
that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.'''' 
We  hope  our  Baptist  friends  will  not  make  so  wide 
a  mistake,  as  to  say,  that  the  oracles  of  God,  are  the 
earthly  Canaan. 

Although  the  Jews  had  temporal  benefits  as  a  na- 
tion, connected  with  circumcision,  yet  the  rite  was 
not  instituted  on  that  account.  "Circumcision  verily 
profteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law;  but  if  thou  be  a  break- 
er of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  wncircum- 
cision."  Rom.  ii,  25.  Here  again  the  profit  of  cir- 
cumcision is  not  made  to  consist  in  the  enjoyment 
of  temporal  blessings;  but  in  keeping  the  law,  or  or- 
acles of  God.  Surely,  this  did  not  regard  the  earthly 
Canaan. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  17  of  his  Sermon — "While  he 
(that  is  Abraham,)  was  literally,  the  father  of  the 


40 

whole  Jewish  family,  he  was,  spiritually,  the  father 
of  none  but  believers,  even  among  his  own  offspring: 
and  now,  as  circumcision  was  enjoined  upon  all  his 
natural  seed,  it  follows  of  course,  that  the  design  of 
it  was  literal^  and  that  its  benefits  were  to  be  looked 
for  in  connexion  with  the  literal  import  of  the  sev- 
eral promises  which  God  had  made  to  him:  thus, 
those  who  were  circumcised,  should  be  acknowledg- 
ed his  natural  descendants;  should  be  protected  by 
the  arm  of  God,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges 
connected  with  all  that  arrangement,  by  which  it 
was  designed  to  keep  them  a  separate  nation;  and 
finally  should  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan.  A  candid 
observer  must  perceive,  that  as  the  literal  provisions 
of  this  covenant  were  confined  to  Abraham's  natu- 
ral seed,  the  literal  rites  of  the  covenant  must  also 
be  confined  to  that  people.'' 

The  statements  made  in  this  quotation  are  plainly 
and  flatly  contradicted  by  the  facts  in  the  case.  The 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  men  of  Abraham's  house 
who  were  circumcised,  were  they  a  part  of  his  nat- 
ural seed?  Gen.  xiv,  14.  And  were  those,  and  Ish- 
mael,  and  his  seed,  kept  a  separate  nation?  And 
did  they  finally  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan?  Again; 
were  those  servants  acknowledged  his  natural  de- 


41 

scendants?  Mr.  B.  says  so.  What  say  you  candid 
reader?  The  idea  that  circumcision  was  designed 
only  as  a  national  badge,  (the  idea  that  is  so  confi- 
dently advanced  by  some  of  our  Baptist  teachers,) 
is  contradicted  by  the  facts  connected  with  the  ori- 
ginal institution  of  circumcision,  as  well  as  by  the 
facts  connected  with  the  history  of  the  institution. 
For  if  it  was  a  national  badge  to  the  Jews,  or  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  by  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob, 
it  was  equally  so  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham  by 
the  line  of  Ishmael  and  Esau.  For  the  Ishmael- 
ites,  Arabians  and  Saracens,  all  practiced  the  rite; 
and  at  this  day,  circumcision  is  the  initiating  rite  to 
the  Mahomedan  as  well  as  the  Jew. 

How  can  that  be  a  national  badge  to  one  nation^ 
that  is  practised  by  many  nations?  "I  speak  as 
unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

Having  shown,  (as  we  trust,)  in  the  foregoing  ob- 
servations, the  identity  of  the  church,  and  that  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  (of  which  circumcis- 
ion was  the  sign  and  seal,)  was  the  covenant  of 
grace,  intimated  in  Eden,  to  Adam,  (when  his  whole 
posterity  were  yet  in  his  loins,)  and  fully  made  known 
under  the  gospel  dispensation;  the  seed  of  the  wo- 
man having  now  bruised  the  serpent's  head,  by  his 


42 

crucifixion  on  the  cross,  having  "been  made  a  curse 
for  us,  that  the  ^blessing  of  Abraham,''  might  come 
on  all  that  believe,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles;  that  ac- 
cording to  the  stipulations  of  the  covenant,  he  might 
be  the  father  of  many  nations f^^  we  shall  now 
proceed  to  show  that,  in  this  covenant,  (as  understood 
anciently,)  the  right  of  infant  church  membership 
was  recognized. 

In  proof  that  infants  were  to  be  recognized  as 
having  membership  in  the  family  church,  see  Gen. 
xvii,  11,  12,  13, — "And  ye  shall  circumcise  the 
flesh  of  your  foreskin,  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the 
covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he  that  is  eight 
days  old,  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every 
male  child  in  your  generation;  he  that  is  born  in 
the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  an  stranger, 
which  is  not  of  thy  seed.  This  was  the  original 
constitution  of  the  church  of  the  true  God.  The 
original  charter  of  that  "Jerusalem  which  is  the 
mother  of  us  all."  Gal.  iv,  26.  And  here  the 
rights  of  '^unconscious  babes''  are  acknowledged. 

This  charter  was  in  force,  observe,  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law.  And 
St.  Paul  says,  Gal.  iii,  17, — The  law  did  not 
disannul   the    covenant    which    was    confirmed   of 


43 

God  in  Christ  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  be- 
fore. 

We  see  the  covenant  carried  into  effect  in  respect 
to  children  during  the  law.  We  quote  in  proof,  2 
Chron.  xxxi,  14,  19.  In  this  passage,  brethren, 
wives,  sons,  daughters,  and  little  ones,  are  all  men- 
tioned as  entering  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And 
this  extended  "through  all  the  congregation,"  and 
we  are  told  that  Hezekiah  in  this  arrangement  of  the 
congregation  did  that  which  was  right  and  good  he- 
fore  the  Lord  his  God.  (v.  20.)  Now  we  never 
heard  it  denied,  that  the  Priests  and  Levites,  entered 
not  into  the  active  and  official  services  of  the  temple, 
until  the  age  of  thirty:  we  see  this  illustrated  in  the 
case  of  John  the  Baptist,  who  was  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  and  the  family  of  Aaron.  Yet  we  learn  from 
the  passage  in  Chron.  that  the  ^little  ofies'  of  three 
years  old,  entered  into  the  'house  of  the  Lord,'  and 
made  a  part  of  the  congregation. 

This  will  throw  light  on  that  passage  in  Deut. 
xxix,  10,  13, — "Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you,  before 
the  Lord  your  God,  ^your  little  ones,''  <&c.  to  enter 
into  covenant  with  the  Lord  your  God,"  &;c.  Chil- 
dren of  three  years  old,  enter  into  covenant  with 

God?  yes,  this  is  their  own  personal  act.     Nor  are 
5* 


44 

these  the  only  places  where  little  ones  are  public 
characters;  for  Joshua  in  confirming,  or  renewing, 
the  national  covenant,  on  Mount  Gerizim,  "read 
all  the  words  of  the  law,  the  blessings  and  curs- 
ings, according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of 
the  law,"  to  the  little  awes— to  children  three  years 
old.  Josh,  viii,  34,  35, — "It  is  clear  from  the  pas- 
sages adduced,  that  children  of  three  years  old  were 
members  of  the  national  church;  and  engaged  in  the 
most  sacred  rites  and  solemn  transactions,  equally 
with  their  fathers.  They  were,  no  doubt,  subject  to 
the  same  preparatory  purifications,  and  were  treated 
on  the  same  ritual  principles  as  their  fathers." 

You  find  from  1  Sam.,  i,  22,  24,  28,  and  ii,  11,— 
That  as  soon  as  Hannah  weaned  Samuel,  she 
brought  him  and  lent  him  to  the  Lord,  '^And  he 
ministered  unto  the  Lord  before  Eli  the  Priest,  being 
a  child  girded  with  a  linen  ephod.^^ 

"Having  shown  that  by  the  authority  of  God,  in- 
fants were  received  into  the  covenant,  and  the 
church;  that  at  three  years  of  age  they  were  public- 
ly recognized  as  members  of  the  church,  and  per- 
sonally performed  public  acts  of  membership,  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  same  divine  authority  which  granted 
the  right,  must  be  shown  to  have  cancelled  it,  be- 


45 

fore  they  can  justly  be  deprived  of  it;  and  as  no  one 
pretends  that  God  has  prohibited  the  memhership  of  in- 
fants under  the  Gospel,  the  original  grant  must  remain  in 
fvllforcer 

We  shall  explain  this  part  of  the  subject,  by  an 
illustration  or  two.  What  is  called  in  most  of  the 
states  of  this  Union,  the  common  law,  is  the  law  of 
the  commonwealth,  unless  in  the  particular  case,  the 
common  law  has  been  repealed  by  express  statute 
law.  Hence  it  is  sometimes  a  question  in  the  courts, 
(which  cannot  be  decided  without  an  appeal,)  wheth- 
er the  case  before  the  court  is  actionable  at  com- 
mon law,  or  whether  it  has  been  provided  for  by  ex- 
press statute.  Apply  the  matter.  We  find  the 
right  of  infant  church  membership  acknowledged  in 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  in  the  church  of 
God,  for  about  two  thousand  years.  We  take  their 
having  had  a  title,  as  prima  facia  evidence,  that 
thry  have  a  title  still.  We  look  into  the  New  Tes- 
tament, (which  1  consider  the  book  of  statute  law 
for  the  church,)  to  see  if  there  is  any  precept  or  pre- 
cedent, any  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,''  for  excluding  in- 
fants; any  abrogating  statute;  and  we  find  none. — 
Take  another  case:  There  is  now  in  Virginia,  what 
is  called  a  ^New  Constitution;'  has  any  intelligent 


46 

citizen  of  the  state,  ever  entertained  an  idea  that  this 
is  any  other,  than  the  old  constitution  amended,  by 
the  authority  of  the  state,  vested  in  a  convention  of 
the  citizens?  Are  not  the  privileges  of  the  citizens 
precisely  the  same  as  under  the  old  constitution,  ex- 
cept so  far,  as  that  was  amended  by  the  direct  ac- 
tion of  the  convention?  Do  not  the  strong  features 
of  the  constitution  remain  the  same?  Were  the 
terms  of  citizenship  altered?  or  the  essential  privi- 
leges of  the  citizens  infringed,  by  the  partial  amend- 
ments which  are  found  to  have  been  made?  Or  does 
any  citizen  infer  other  amendments,  from  the  fact 
that  he  finds  some  plainly  stated  in  the  new  charter 
or  constitution?  And  if  a  question  should  arise  in  the 
state  about  implied  privileges,  or  abridged  rights, 
I  suppose  the  gentleman  who  should  indulge  his 
imagination  in  the  case,  would  be  expected  to  furnish 
the  burden  of  proof,  to  support  his  inferences:  he 
would  not  be  allowed  to  change  the  old  constitution 
by  inference.  Apply  the  illustration  to  the  case  in 
hand.  We  call  upon  our  Baptist  friends  to  show,  if 
they  can,  that  there  has  taken  place,  under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation,  any  essential  change  in  the 
privileges  of  the  church,  or  its  members.  Zion'  in- 
deed has  'enlarged  her  borders,'  but  her  ^citizens* 


47 

and  their  privileges  are  substantiaUy  the  same. 
Here  we  might  rest  tliis  branch  of  the  argument, 
until  those  who  exclude  little  children  from  the  visi- 
ble family  of  God,  should  produce  the  statute  of  re- 
peal, by  which  their  privileges  are  taken  away. 
And  till  this  be  done,  their  rights  may  be  safely 
rested  upon  the  original  grant.  But  we  shall  show 
not  only  that  they  ivere  in  the  church  formerly,  but 
that  Christ  did  not  exclude  them  under  the  gospel 
economy. 

I  am  aware  that  many  objections  are  urged 
against  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  to  chil- 
dren: and  when  argument  fails,  sneers  and  ridicule 
are  made  to  do  what  argument  cannot,  and  scrip- 
ture will  not,  accomphsh.  It  is  called  "infant 
sprinkling,"  "baby  sprinkling."  And  a^ain  it  is 
asked,  "what  do  they  know  about  the  ordinance." 
Take  one  specimen  of  many,  from  IMr.  Broaddus's 
Ser.  p.  41, — "Thanks  to  the  ingenuity  of  pope 
Stephen  III.  for  an  invention  which  secures  the 
dear  little  creatures  a  place  in  heaven,  without  the 
inconvenience  and  danger  of  being  plunged  into  a 
stream  or  pool  of  water."  It  is  likely  Mr.  B.  has  a 
better  opinion  of  the  papers  close  communion. 
Query — can  he,  or  the  pope,  furnish  a   "Thus  saith 


48 

the  Lord,"  for  excluding  their  brethren  from  the 
table  of  our  common  Lord,  and  thus  "making 
terms  of  communion  that  are  not  terms  of  salvation?''^ 
(see  Robert  Hall's  Works.)  Can  Mr.  B.  furnish  a 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for  the  observance  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  as  the  Cliristian  Sabbath,  instead 
of  the  seventh.  Yet  he,  and  the  whole  Christian 
world,  so  far  as  I  know,  (except  the  seventh-day 
Baptists,)  agree  to  adopt  it  as  the  Sabbath.  I  sup- 
pose that  can  be  managed  without  an  express  war- 
rant, and  can  be  abundantly  made  out  from  prece- 
dent and  inference,  &c.  &c.,  as  it  does  not  stand  in 
the  way  of  "believers'  baptism,"  or  "baptism  by  im- 
mersion.'' We  trust,  candid  reader,  to  furnish  you 
evidence,  with  regard  to  the  subjects  of  baptism, 
which  shall  not  with  you,  (at  least,)  be  set  aside  by 
irony  or  ridicule. 

Proselyte  Baptism. 

That  Baptism  was  in  existence  before  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist,  seems  evident  from  the  writings 
of  some  of  the  Jews,  especially  as  practised  in  the  case 
of  proselytes.  Maimonides  holds  on  this  subject  the 
following  language: — "/w  all  ages,  when  a  heathen 
(or  a  stranger  by  nation)  was  willing  to  enter  into 


49 

the  covenant  of  Israel^  and  gather  himself  under  the 
wings  of  the  majesty  of  God^  and  take  upon  himself 
the  yoke  of  the  laic,  he  must  be  first  circumcised,  and 
secondly  baptized,  and  thirdly  bring  a  sacrifice; 
or  if  the  party  were  a  icoman^  then  she  must  be  first 
BAPTIZED,  and  secondly  bring  a  sacrifice.'''' — 
(Clarke's  Commentary  at  the  end  of  Mark.)  And 
this  fact  does  not  rest  on  the  authority  of  the  Jews 
alone,  for  that  the  practice  existed,  and  was  known 
to  the  heathens,  is  clear  from  the  words  of  Epicte- 
tus:  (he  is  blaming  those  who  assume  the  profes- 
sion of  philosophy  without  acting  up  to  it:)  "  Why 
do  you  call  yourself  a  stoic?  Why  do  you  deceive 
the  multitude?  Why  do  you  pretend  to  be  a  Greek? 
when  you  are  a  Jew,  a  Syrian,  an  Egyptian?  And 
when  we  see  one  wavering,  we  are  wont  to  say,  this 
is  not  a  Jew,  but  acts  one.  But  when  he  assumes 
the  sentiments  of  one  who  hath  been  baptized  and 
circumcised,  then  he  both  really  is,  and  is  called  a 
Jew,"  &c. 

This  practice  then  of  the  Jews — proselyte  bap- 
tism— was  so  notorious  to  the  heathens  in  Italy  and 
Greece,  that  it  furnished  this  philosopher  with  an 
object  of  comparison.  Now,  Epictetus  lived  to  be 
very  old — he  is  placed  by  Dr.  Lardner,  A.  D.  109; 


50 

by  Le  Clerc,  A.  D.  1 04.  He  could  not  be  less  than 
sixty  years  of  age  when  he  wrote  this:  and  he  might 
obtain  his  information  thirty  or  forty  years  earlier, 
which  brings  it  up  to  the  time  of  the  apostles. 
Those  who  could  think  that  the  Jews  could  institute 
proselyte  baptism,  at  the  very  moment  when  the 
Christians  were  practising  baptism  as  an  initiatory 
rite,  are  not  to  be  envied  for  the  correctness  of  their 
judgment.  The  rite  dates  much  earlier,  probably 
many  ages.  I  see  no  reason  for  disputing  the  asser- 
tion of  Maimonides,  notwithstanding  Dr.  Gill's  rash 
and  fallacious  language  on  the  subject.  See  Facts 
and  Evidences  as  quoted  by  Watson — "This  bap- 
tism of  proselj^tes,  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  has  fully  shown, 
was  a  baptism  of  families^  and  comprehended  their 
infant  cJdldren;  and  the  rite  was  a  symbol  of  their 
being  washed  from  the  pollution  of  idolatry.  Very 
different,  indeed,  in  the  extent  of  its  import  and 
office,  was  Christian  baptism  to  the  Jewish  bap- 
tism; nevertheless,  this  shows  that  the  Jews  were 
familiar  with  the  rite  as  it  extended  to  children,  in 
cases  of  conversions  from  idolatry;  and,  as  far  at 
least  as  the  converts  from  paganism  to  Christianity 
were  concerned,  they  could  not  but  understand 
Christian  baptism  to  extend  to  the  infant  children  of 


51 

Gentile  proselytes,  unless  there  had  been,  what  we 
no  where  find  in  the  discourses  of  Christ,  or  the 
writings  of  the  apostles,  an  express  exception  of 
them.''     Watson  on  Baptism. 

It  is  objected  to  infant  baptism,  that  infants  are 
not  capable  of  believing,  and  that  as  the  apostles  re. 
ceived  a  commission  to  baptize  believers,  Mark  xvi, 
15,  16,  therefore  infants  ought  to  be  refused  the  or- 
dinance. This  reason  lies  equally  against  infant 
salvation.  An  argument  that  proves  too  much,  (as 
this  does,)  proves  nothing,  only  that  he  who  uses  it 
is  hard  run  for  an  argument.  Let  us  look  at  this 
matter  a  moment.  Infants  cannot  believe,  Mere/ore 
they  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  Infants  cannot  be- 
lieve, therefore  they  must  be  damned!  For  the  text 
says — "He  that  helieveth  not  shall  be  damned."  Mr. 
B.  says,  p.  7, — I  will  engage  to  prove,  that  the  com- 
mission actually  excludes  all  unbelievers,  whether 
unconscious  infants  or  unbelieving  adults."  "Why 
tell  them  to  baptize  believers,  if  they  were  to  bap- 
tize  all  men  indiscriminately?"  Why  should  he  thus 
'beat  the  air?'  He  never  heard  an  intelligent  pedo- 
baptist  say  that  ^^all  men  indiscriminately''''  are  to  be 
baptized.     Why  did  he  not  quote  Eph.  ii,  8 — "By 

grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith."     But  infants  have 
6 


52 

no  faith;  therefore  they  cannot  be  saved.  Or  this; 
"If  any  will  not  work  neither  shall  he  eat."  Chil- 
dren cannot  work,  therefore  children  should  not  be 
allowed  to  eat;  and  thus,  by  his  reasoning,  furnish 
a  pretext  for  starving  children  according  to  the  word 
of  the  apostle: — or  he  might  have  quoted:  "The  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  in  flaming  fire, 
taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  gospel" — infants  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  gospel,  therefore,  he  will  take  ven- 
geance on  them,  &c.  This  is  a  kind  of  logic  that 
puts  more  in  the  conclusion  than  is  in  the  'premises, 
and  is  therefore  a  mere  sophism.  Again,  baptism 
say  they,  "is  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,  infants 
cannot  have  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,  there- 
fore they  ought  not  to  be  baptized.''  Infants  have 
not  an  evil  conscience,  and  that  is  more  than  can  be 
said  for  many  adults,  who  have  been  baptized  upon 
a  profession  of  faith.  They  have  innocency  to  re- 
commend them;  while  of  Simon  Magus,  it  is  said, 
"Simon  himself  believed  also;  and  when  he  was  bap- 
tized," Sec.  We  soon  hear  of  this  man  who  had  re- 
ceived "believers'  baptism,''  that  his  heart  "is  not 
right  in  the  sight  of  God,"  "he  is  in  the  gall  of  bit- 
terness.^^  "Thou  hast  no  part  or  lot  in  this  matter." 
And  I  conclude,  Simon's  was  not  a  solitary  case. 


5S 

Mr.  B's  illustration  on  p.  7,  t  think  very  unfortu- 
nate; because  there  is  an  obvious  want  of  analogy 
in  the  case.  His  words  are,  "suppose  the  governor 
of  Virginia  should  send  out  recruiting  officers,  under 
a  commission  reading  as  follows,  viz:  Go  through 
all  the  state  and  call  upon  all  the  inhabitants  to  en- 
list, in  the  army,  giving  them  ten  dollars  each;''  he 
says  "can  any  one  suppose  that  unconscious  infants 
are  included  among  those  who  are  to  receive  the 
ten  dollars?"  "The  cases,  (he  says,)  are  precisely 
parallel."  I  suppose  if  infants  were  as  capable  of 
being  soldiers,  of  bearing  arms,  and  marching  to  the 
battle  field,  as  they  were  anciently,  and  are  noiu,  of 
receiving  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  then  indeed  there 
might  be  some  analogy;  but  until  that  is  proved,  we 
shall  not  allow  Mr.  B.  to  pass  off  assumption  for 
proof,  or  sophistry  for  argument,  or  agree  that  he 
shall  beg  the  question  where  the  proof  is  absent;  as 
he  has  done  more  than  once  in  his  Strictures  and 
Sermons. 

Again — the  wording  of  the  commission,  in  Matt, 
xxviii,  19,  20, — is  urged  against  the  propriety  of  ad- 
mitting children  to  baptism.  We  must  always  try 
to  put  ourselves  in  the  circumstances  of  those  who 
are  addressed,  and    ask  what  would  be   the  sense 


54 

which,  in  their  peculiar  circumstances,  we  would 
have  been  likely  to  put  upon  the  words.  Dr.  Watts 
remarks,  that  we  often  interpret  the  meaning  of 
terms  from  early  impressions,  made  upon  us  by  local 
circumstances. — Hence  says  he,  "A  youth  raised  in 
sight  of  a  parish  church,  that  has  a  steeple  on  it, 
always  associates  in  his  mind,  when  he  hears  the 
word  church,  the  idea  of  a  house  with  a  steeple,^''  &c. 
So  when  a  man  unacquainted  with  ancient  customs, 
reads  in  the  New  Testament — "men  do  not  put  new 
wine  into  old  bottles,  lest  the  bottles  burst,"  &;c.  he 
is  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  matter;  for  his  mind 
directly  recurs  to  the  fact  that  glass  bottles  which 
have  been  tried,  can  be  better  trusted  to  stand  the 
process  of  vinous  fermentation,  than  new  ones.  But 
there  was  no  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  those  to  whom 
the  words  were  spoken  originally;  because  they 
knew  of  no  bottles  except  those  made  of  skins;  which 
were  always  strongest  when  new. 

If  the  original  commission  to  "disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,''  &c.,  had  been  given  to  Mr.  B.  or 
any  of  his  brethren  of  whom  it  may  be  said  that  "in- 
fant baptism  is  their  soul's  abhorrence,''  1  frankly 
confess  that  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  have 
given  such  specific  directions  to  admit  the  children 


55 

to  the  ordinance  with  the  parents;  and  it  might  have 
been  necessary,  for  aught  1  know,  to  have  wrought 
a  miracle  to  convince  them,  that  there  was  any  sense 
or  justice  in  baptizing  *'a  babe^ — Christ  might  have 
found  their  prejudices  as  stubborn  as  were  Peter's,  who 
could  not  discover,  that  "God  was  no  respecter  of 
persons,  until,  while  in  a  trance,  a  sheet  was  let 
down  from  heaven,  and  a  voice  said  to  him  three 
limes,  kill  and  eat;'''' and  the  spirit  said,  "Go  with 
the  men  (of  Cornelius)  doubting  nothing,  for  I  have 
sent  them."  Men's  pre-judices  become  very  invet- 
erate, especially  when  they  grow  up  under  a  system 
of  exclusiveness.  Hear  Mr.  B.  page  27,  for  the 
proof  of  the  above.  "This  species  of  tyranny  over 
men's  consciences  (i.  e.  baptizing  infants)  would  bet- 
ter suit  the  avowed  doctrines  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
than  the  professed  liberality  of  Protestants.  It 
would  be  difficult  far  me  to  perceive  any  thing  more 
arbitrary  in  baplizing  adults,  at  the  point  of  the 
sword,  than  in  taking  unconscious  infants,  and  im- 
posing upon  them  submission  to  a  religious  rite, 
with  respect  to  which  they  have  no  volition  or 
choice." 

The  reader  can  perceive  from   this  quotation,  the 

views  and  feeling  of  Mr.  B.  with  regard    to   infant 
6* 


56 

baptism.  I  hesitate  not  to  declare,  that  the  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  above,  is  calculated  to  subvert 
that  order  and  subordination  which  is  necessary  to 
the  well-being  of  society.  For  if  it  is  tyranny  in 
the  parent  to  dedicate  the  child  to  God  in  baptism, 
without  the  child's  choice;  then  is  the  child's  liberty 
taken  away,  if  the  parent  requires  it  to  observe  the 
Christian  Sabbath;  or  to  go  to  the  house  of  God, 
instead  of  the  temple  of  an  idol.  The  apostle  con- 
sidered it  not  warring  with  the  liberty  of  the  gos- 
pel, or  of  the  child  to  say.  Col.  iii,  20,  "Children 
obey  your  parents  in  all  things ^  And  to  require 
the  parent,  Eph.  vi,  4,  "To  bring  them  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  If  the  judg- 
ment of  the  parent  is  to  govern  the  child  in  its  mi- 
nority, surely  it  cannot  be  a  sore  evil  to  the  child, 
to  be  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  before  it  is  in- 
structed and  admonished  in  the  Lord.  Such  ^^tyran- 
nical parents^^  have  the  example  of  Abraham,  the  fa- 
ther of  the  faithful  to  encourage  them;  and  the  ex- 
ample of  all  the  faithful  from  Abraham  down  to  Jo- 
seph and  Mary,  the  reputed  father  and  real  mother 
of  Jesus;  for  at  eight  days  old,  Jesus  was  solemnly 
recognized  as  a  member  of  the  church,  by  the  rite  of 
circumcision.     Yet   this,  according  to   Mr.  B.  was 


57 

about  as  arbitrary,  as  if  John,  at  the  age  of  thirty, 
had  baptized  him  "at  the  point  of  the  sword.'' 

From  the  above  it  will  appear  how  inveterate  are 
the  prejudices  of  this  gentleman,  against  infant  bap- 
tism. Hence  I  say,  if  he,  and  those  who  think  and 
feel  as  he  does  on  this  subject,  had  received  the  com- 
mission Peter  and  his  fellow  apostles  received,  the 
directions  to  admit  infants  would,  (of  necessity,)  have 
been  very  definite.  But  as  it  was,  the  commission 
was  put  into  the  hands  of  Jews,  who  had  never  known 
a  church  that  did  not  admit,  and  maintain,  the  right 
of  infant  church  membership.  They,  of  course, 
would  so  understand  the  commission,  as  to  admit  the 
children  with  their  parents,  as  was  always  the  case 
when  Gentiles  were  proselyted  to  the  Jewish  relig- 
ion. Being  well  acquainted  with  this  practice,  they 
would  admit  the  children  unless  forbidden  to  do  so. 
Peter  and  his  brethren  had  never  learned  to  think 
of  a  church  that  excluded  children  from  member- 
ship, and  of  course  would  not  attempt  to  form  a 
church  upon  a  new  model,  unless  specifically  direct- 
ed so  to  do.  Jewish  children  were  called  the  "disci- 
ples of  Moses,'' — and  when  the  commission  said 
'Go  and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  and 
teaching   them,"  &c.    they   would   make    disciples 


58 

of  adults  and  their  children,  as  the  Jewish  Missiona- 
ries had  been  accustomed  lo  do  from  the  beginning. 
They  who  valued  themselves  upon  being  the  children 
of  Abraham,  would  not  reject  the  infant  children  of 
the  followers  of  Abraham's  faith.  "If  ye  be  Chrisfs, 
then  are  ye  Abraham^ s  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."— St.  Paul. 

It  is  objected  farther,  if  they  are  admitted  to  bap- 
tism, on  the  same  ground,  they  ought  to  be  admit- 
ted to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper.  This  ob- 
jection is  more  specious  than  valid.  It  is  evident 
to  all  who  reflect,  that  there  is  a  manifest  difference 
existing  in  the  two  ordinances,  baptism  and  the 
Lord^s  supper, — as  is  obvious  from  the  scriptures, 
and  from  the  practice  of  the  Baptists  themselves. 
I  suppose  they  do  not  admit  all  to  the  communion, 
(however  unworthy,)  who  have  been  once  baptized. 
Now  infants  have  no  capacity  to  "discern  the  Lord's 
body,"  or  to  examine  themselves  before  approaching 
the  supper.  Nor  is  it  ever  said  of  baptism,  "He 
that  receives  it  unworthily,  receives  it  to  his  own 
damnation." 

The  children  of  Jewish  parents,  though  regular 
church  members,  did  not  eat  of  the  Passover  until  a 
given  age.     So  says  Calvin,  Institutes,  b.  iv,  ch.  16, 


59 

*'The  Passover,  which  has  now  been  succeeded  by 
the  sacred  supper,  did  not  admit  guests  of  all  de- 
scriptions promiscuously;  but  was  rightly  eaten  only 
by  those  who  were  of  sufficient  age  to  be  able  to  in- 
quire into  its  signification." 

Josephus  says,  Antiq.  lib.  xii,  ch.  4, — "The  law 
forbids  the  son  to  eat  of  the  sacrifice^  before  he  has 
come  to  the  temple,  and  there  presented  an  offering 
to  God." 

"Children  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  (says  Poole) 
were  brought  by  their  parents  to  the  temple;  and 
from  that  time  they  began  to  eat  of  the  Passover,  and 
other  sacrifices.'' 

I  shall  quote  but  three  more  authorities  on  this 
point. 

"Till  a  child  was  twelve  years  old,  he  was  not 
obliged  to  go  to  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  Pass- 
over."     Stackhouse,  hist.  bib.  b.  viii,  ch.  1. 

"The  males  were  not  brought  to  the  temple,  till 
they  were  twelve  years  old,  and  the  sacrifices  they 
ate,  were  chiefly  peace  offerings,  which  became  the 
common  food  to  all  that  were  clean  in  the  family." 
Dr.  Doddridge,  lee.  p.  ix,  prop.  155. 

Hence  we  find,  (in  Luke  ii,  21,  41,  42,)  that  al- 
though Jesus  was  circumcised  at  eight  days  old,  and 


60 

his  parents  went  up  every  year  to  the  passover  feast, 
yet  there  is  no  intimation  that  Jesus  ever  kept  the 
feast,  until  he  was  twelve  years  old;  "  J.nrf  when  he 
was  twelve  years  old,  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem, 
after  the  custom  of  the  feasts  The  learned  Dr. 
Gill,  a  Baptist  writer,  has  spoken  to  the  same  effect. 
Gill's  Com.  on  Luke  ii,  42.  "According  to  the 
maxims  of  the  Jews,"  says  he,  "persons  were  not 
obliged  to  the  duties  of  the  law,  or  subject  to  its 
penalties  in  case  of  non-performance,  until  they  were, 
a  female,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  and  one  day, 
and  a  male  at  the  age  of  thirteen  years  and  one  day. 
But  then  they  used  to  train  up  their  children,  and 
inure  them  to  religious  exercises  before.  They 
were  not  properly  under  the  law  until  they  had  ar- 
rived at  the  age  above  mentioned;  nor  were  they 
reckoned  adult  church  members,  until  then,  nor  then 
neither,  unless  worthy  persons: — for  so  it  is  said, 
"He  that  is  worthy,  at  thirteen  years  of  age,  is 
called,  a  'son  of  the  congregation  of  Israel.'  " 

From  the  examination  of  this  objection  to  infant 
baptism,  our  views  are  strengthened;  for  it  appears 
that  although  infants  were  formerly  circumcised, 
they  were  not  required  to  eat  the  Passover.  And 
although  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  "«s  they  may  be 


61 

the  subjects  of  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
sprinkUng  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  signified  by  bap- 
tism, and  can  thus  be  distinguished  visibly  as  the 
special  property  of  Christ,  yet  they  cannot,  in  the 
supper,  'discern  the  Lord's  body,'  and  partake  of  it 
'in  remembrance  of  him;' and  are  morally  and  phys- 
ically incapable  of  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  ac- 
cording to  the  meaning  of  the  institution. 

And  although  at  some  periods  of  the  history  of 
the  church,  in  some  places  infant  communion  was 
held;  yet  it  was  never  said  to  have  come  down  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  nor  did  it  ever  generally 
prevail  in  the  Christian  church.  I  suppose  it  came 
into  the  church  as  an  innovation,  the  result  of  super - 
atition,  and  prevailed  about  as  extensively,  and  stood 
upon  the  same  footing  as  the  practice  of  baptizing 
men  and  women  naked;  dipping  them  three  times, 
and  then  giving  milk  and  honey  to  the  baptized. 

We  shall  in  the  next  place  try  to  ascertain  how 
the  apostles  understood  their  commission,  from  the 
manner  in  which  they  executed  it,  as  we  find  the 
matter  detailed  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

We  think  it  cannot  be  shown  that  in  any  case 
where  parents  were  baptized,  their  children  were 
left  still  to  be  the  disciples  of  Moses,  or  in  an  out- 


G2 

cast  lieathen  state.  We  think  the  cases  of  family 
or  household  baptism  recorded,  furnish,  at  least,  very- 
strong  presumptive  evidence,  for  infant  baptism;  and 
I  suppose  presumptive  evidence  for  them,  will  be 
considered  good;  until  some  counter  evidence  is 
produced. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Broaddus  says,  ser.  page  11, 
^^  I  have  myself  baptized  four  households,  and  not  an 
infant  among  them.''''  In  the  whole  course  of  his 
ministry,  I  suppose  in  some  twelve  or  fourteen  years, 
after  baptizing  hundreds,  as  I  presume;  he  has  bap- 
tized '■'■four  households,  and  not  an  infant  among  them." 
I  really  feel  a  little  curiosity  to  know  who  they 
were,  and  how  many  souls,  the  four  households  con- 
tained. 1  wonder  if  there  were  any  married  persons 
among  them?  I  hope  if  this  gentleman  should  write 
again,  he  will  give  us  some  information  on  this  ex- 
traordinary case,  for  it  is  surely  extraordinary  to 
hear  of  a  Baptist  preacher  baptizing  even  onehousB' 
hold,  except  perhaps  where  a  man  and  his  wife,  or 
a  bachelor  and  his  maiden  sister  constitute  a  house- 
hold. We  are  thankful  to  Mr.  B.  for  this  piece  of 
information.  It  seems  then,  that  in  the  course  of 
his  whole  ministry,  after  having  baptized  hundreds, 
he  has  met  with  and  baptized  four  households,  that 
had  no  infants  in  them. 


63 

Now  in  the  x\cts  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  the  Epis- 
tles, there  are  a  few  families  only,  mentioned.  And 
in  every  case  where  there  is  mention  of  a  family, 
there  is  the  total  absence  of  evidence  that  any  part 
of  the  family  was  refused  baptism.  Li  every  case 
where  baptism  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  a 
family,  the  evidence,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  in  favor  of 
the  baptism  of  the  parent,  and  the  children. 

We  will  take  first,  the  case  of  Lydia,  Acts  xvi,  15, 
— "And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household. '''' 
But  Mr.  B.  thinks,  page  10,  that  possibly  the  house- 
hold were  "Lydia's  partners  in  her  mercantile  oper- 
ations," he  says,  possibly  they  were  ^^journeymen  dy- 
ers'''' "or  were  they  mere  travelling  companions?" 
Our  Baptist  friends  are  so  bent  upon  cutting  off  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism,  that  they  will  suppose 
any  thing,  however  preposterous,  to  evade  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  household  baptisms. 

They  will  suppose  that  even  partners  in  business, 
with  Lydia,  £»r  '•^journeymen  dyers,''''  were  baptized, 
and  constituted  "brethren,"  although  there  is  no  in- 
timation that  she  had  so  much  as  one  partner  or  one 
journeyman;  and  if  she  had,  (which  we  think  very 
unlikely,)  then  they  were  baptized  and  made  breth- 
ren, without  grace;  for  the  passage  makes  no  men> 
7 


62 

tion  of  the  heart  of  any  person  being  opened,  except 
LydiaV,  and  there  is  no  intimation  that  those  jour- 
neymen either  repented  or  beheved,  and  of  course 
could  not  have  received  "beUever's  baptism."  I  ap- 
peal to  you,  reader,  to  judge,  who  would  be  the  most 
fit  for  baptism, — the  children  of  a  believing  mother, 
or  a  household  of  graceless  ^^journeymen  dyers.^^ 
"I  speak  as  unto  wise  men." 

God  said,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed^ 
Peter  said,  "the  promise  is  unto  you  and  your  chil- 
dren.^^  And  Luke  says,  "Lydia  was  baptized,  and 
her  household.''''     "Judge  ye  what  I  say." 

Is  there  not  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  the 
apostles  baptized  children  with  their  parents? 

But  Mr.  B.  had  to  suppose,  that  Lydia  had  a  dy- 
ing establishment,  in  order  to  find  a  use  for  'jour- 
neymen;' and  then  he  thinks  it  would  have  been 
"unsuitable"  and  "inconvenient"  for  her  to  have 
brought  her  infant  or  infants  with  her,  such  a  dis- 
tance, even  if  she  had  them  at  home.  He  thinks  it 
'very  improbable'  that  she  would  have  them  with 
her.  Now,  candid  reader,  I  think  just  the  reverse; 
for  if  Lydia  left  Thyatira,  and  came  to  Philippi,  and 
set  up  a  dying  establishment,  that  needed  journey- 
men, and  went  to  housekeeping  with  her  'partners' 


65 

or  'journeymen,'  or  both,  then  /  say,  it  is  extremely 
improbable  that  she  would  have  left  any  'part  of  her 
family  at  Thyatira,  much  less  her  "infant  offspring." 
However  inconvenient  it  might  be  to  a  mother  to 
bring  her  children  such  a  distance,  yet  with  a  moth- 
er''s  hearty  she  would  doubtless  find  it  much  more  in- 
convenient to  have  them  so  far  from  her. 

The  editor  of  Calmet,  Facts  and  Evidences,  p. 
13, 14,  has  proved  that  (Oikos)  the  word  used  in  the 
passage,  when  spoken  of  persons,  denotes  a  family 
of  children — and  includes  children  of  all  ages.  And 
he  offers  not  on\y  fifty  examples  to  prove  it,  but  says 
that  ^Hhree  hundred  instances  have  been  examined, 
and  have  proved  perfectly  satisfactory." 

The  same  writer  says,  that  when  the  sacred  wri- 
ters include  servants,  and  the  whole  domestic  estab- 
lishment, they  use  the  word  (Oikia,)  and  the  passage 
above  should  be  read,  "and  when  she  was  baptized 
and  her  family."  Lydia  then  had  a  family  of  chil- 
dren; and  these  children  were  baptized  at  the  same 
time  with  their  mother. 

Again,  as  this  woman  appears  not  to  have  been 
past  the  meridian  of  life,  the  presumption  is,  that 
part  of  those  children  were  young.  What  Mr.  B. 
says  about  those  persons  who  constituted   Lydia's 


60 

tkiiiily,  beiiig  the  brethreu  spuken  of  in  the  40  v. 
who  were  comforted  by  Paul  and  Silas;  when  exam- 
ined a  little,  will  appear  destitute  even  of  probability. 
He  asks,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  "can  these  things 
be  said  with  propriety  of  unconscious  babesi"  I 
answer  no, — and  there  is  no  necessity  that  they 
should  be  so  applied.  Reader  if  j^ou  will  look  at 
V.  16,  18,  you  will  find  that  the  apostles  held  public 
meetings  in  Phihppi  '•'■many  days*^  after  Lydia's 
conversion,  before  they  were  cast  into  prison;  and 
during  all  that  time  exercised  their  ministry  unmo- 
lested, until  they  cast  the  spirit  of  divination  out  of 
a  "girl;"  which  circumstance  led  to  the  imprison- 
ment of  Paul  and  Silas.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  many  were  converted  at  these  meetings;  espe- 
cially as  Paul  in  his  epistle  to  this  church,  repre- 
sents them  as  having  lived  in  fellowship  in  the  gospel 
"from  the  first  day."  Philip  i,  5.  And  moreover 
there  were  two  of  the  apostolic  company  who  were 
not  in  the  prison  with  Paul  and  Silas,  as  you  will 
see  by  examining  the  context.  The  company  con- 
sisted at  least  of — 1st,  Timothy;  2d,  Paul;  3d,  Silas; 
4th,  Luke.  They  lodged  at  the  house  of  Lydia, 
until  Paul  and  Silas  were  cast  in  prison.  On  the 
day  after  they  were  released   from   their  imprison- 


67 

ment  ^Hhey  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia:  and 
when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted 
them  and  departed^  This  verse  does  not  so  much 
as  intimate  that  "the  brethren"  were  Lydia's  fami- 
ly. When  the  intelligence  of  the  release  of  the 
apostles  from  prison,  was  noised  abroad,  of  course 
the  whole  of  the  brethren,  Timothy,  Luke,  and 
others,  would  repair  to  Paul's  lodgings  to  see  him; 
and  when  he  had  given  them  his  farewell  benedic- 
tion, he  departed. 

Once  more,  on  this  case  of  family  baptism.  It 
will  be  urged,  there  is  no  positive  proof  that  there 
were  infants  in  the  family  of  Lydia.  True,  and 
there  is  no  positive  proof  that  there  were  any  adults 
besides  Lydia  herself.  "But  here  is  positive  proof 
of  the  baptism  of  children,  and  a  family  of  children, 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  baptism  of  the 
parent,  without  a  hint  being  dropped  respecting  their 
faith,  conversion,  or  consent,  or  even  of  their  at- 
tending to  the  things  spoken  of  Paul;  though  the 
account  contains  a  detail  of  the  parents'  conversion, 
in  such  a  way,  that  their  conversion  could  not  well 
have  escaped  notice  had  it  actually  taken  place." 

"It  will  not  be  contended,  we  presume,  by  the  Bap- 
tists, that  any  adults  were  baptized  of  whose  faith 
7* 


68 

we  have  not  good  proof,  for  this  would  destroy  the 
whole  fabric  of  'believers'  baptism.'  When,  there- 
fore, we  find  children  baptized,  of  whose  faith  we 
have  no  proof  at  all,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable, 
that  children  were  not  baptized  by  the  apostles  on 
the  same  grounds  as  adults." 

If  the  sacred  writers  have  taken  care  to  apprize 
us  of  the  previous  faith  of  all  the  adults  who  received 
baptism,  in  order  that  succeeding  ministers  might 
not  mistake  in  giving  the  ordinance  to  an  adult  un- 
believer; did  it  not  equally  behove  them,  if  they  re- 
quired the  same  qualifications  in  children,  to  use  the 
same  care  in  notifying  their  faith,  with  the  record 
of  their  reception  of  the  ordinance?  And  as,  in  fact, 
they  have  not  done  this,  does  it  not  necessarily  fol- 
low, that  faith  in  children  is  not  a  necessary  qvali- 
f  cation?''''     Dr.  Isaac,  p.  185. 

In  fact,  we  never  should  have  known  that  Lydia 
had  a  family,  were  they  not  incidentally  mentioned 
as  accompanying  her  in  baptism; — ^^And  when  she 
was  baptized  and  her  family.''''  Insert  her  baptism, 
we  find  her  family;  omit  her  baptism,  she  has  no 
family  recorded:  the  act  of  her  baptism,  cannot  be 
separated  from  that  of  her  flimily.  Now  if  her 
family  were  of  mature  age,  capable  of  "attention  to 


G9 

{\\e  word  spoken,"  capable  of  having  their  hearts 
opened,  capable  of  believing,  how  is  it  that  they  are 
not  mentioned  together  with  her,  as  attending,  dec, 
since  they  are  mentioned  together  with  her  as  re- 
ceiving baptism?  Surely.  Luke  did  not  think  their 
being  baptized,  a  more  important  fact  than  their 
having  "their  hearts  opened,"  &:c.  so  that  he  should 
mention  the  one  and  omit  the  other:  but  I  shall  be 
told, — we  are  to  infer  their  repentance  and  faith 
from  the  fact  of  their  baptism.  Our  opponents  are 
as  glad  to  be  allowed  an  e;j/'ere«ce  sometimes  as  their 
neighbors.  But,  if  their  conversion  is  to  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  of  their  baptism,  then,  might  the  con- 
version of  the  mother  be  inferred  from  her  haptisin, 
and  there  was  no  necessity  that  Luke  should  have 
detailed  the  circumstances  of  htr  change^  we  might 
have  settled  the  whole  matter  by  inference,  as  well 
as  a  part  of  it.  And,  as  he  detailed  the  circumstances 
of  the  conversion  of  the  mother,  and  said  nothing 
of  the  family,  only  that  they  were  baptized  with  her, 
the  inference,  we  think,  in  the  minds  of  all,  who 
have  not  a  theory  to  support,  by  rejecting  the  evi- 
dence, must  be  irresistible,  that  they  did  not  re- 
ceive baptism  on  the  same  conditions  that  Lydia 
did — but  were  made  disciples  by  baptism,  that   they 


70 

might  be  taught  "the  things  belonging  to  the  'king- 
dom of  God.' " 

The  cases  of  the  household  of  Stephanus,  1  Cor. 
i,  16,  and  the  household  of  the  Philippian  jailor, 
Acts  xvi,  33,  we  shall  not  dwell  upon.  One  remark 
or  two  on  this  last  mentioned  case,  and  we  shall 
proceed. 

Our  Baptist  friends  have  often  attempted  to  do 
away  the  evidence  drawn  from  this  case,  as  Mr.  B. 
does,  Ser.  p.  10,  by  referring  to  that  part  of  the  pas- 
sage which  says,  that  they  spake  to  him  the  word  of 
the  Lord  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,  and  that 
he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  house,  &c. 
The  preaching  evidently  took  place  in  the  outer  pris- 
OTiy  where  Paul  and  Silas  were,  before  they  were 
thrust  into  the  inner  prison;  "and  they  spake  to  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house;"  v.  32.  Here  the  word  (oikia)  is  used, 
which  includes  the  buildings  occupied  by  the  ser- 
vants and  prisoners,  as  well  as  those  appropriated  to 
the  use  of  the  family.  See  Mr.  Taylor's  Facts  and 
Evidences.  When  St.  Paul  says,  v.  31,  "thou  shalt 
be  saved  and  thy  house,"  he  uses  another  word 
(oikos)  which  includes  the  parents  and  children. 
Hence,  when  he  believed,  we  find,  v.  33,  "Ae  was 


71 

baptized,  and  all  his.  straightway,''^  And  suppose 
his  family  did  rejoice  with  him,  there  might  still  be 
infants  in  it.  Have  you  never  read,  "out  of  the 
mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings,  thou  hast  perfected 
praise?" 

It  would  be  well  if  our  Baptist  friends  would  se- 
riously consider  this  case  in  the  light  of  truth,  and 
the  spirit  of  candor.  Though  the  servants  and  pris- 
oners together,  must  have  amounted  to  several  per- 
sons; and  though  the  family  was  undoubtedly  numer- 
ous; yet  we  do  not  read  of  any  one  besides  him,  and 
ALL  his,  being  baptized.  If  we  suppose,  with  a  Bap- 
tist, that  the  whole  of  the  jailor's  family  were  con- 
verted under  this  sermon,  it  would  be  one  of  the 
most  singular  circumstances,  which  the  history  of 
the  church  has  furnished,  that  the  work  of  conver- 
sion should  stop  just  there; — not  one  of  a?/  his  family 
left;  not  one  of  all  the  rest  taken. 

Allotr,  the  children  were  baptized  on  the  ground 
of  their  father^  s  faith,  and  all  the  mystery  and  diffi- 
culty of  the  passage  vanishes  at  once.  Dr.  Isaac, 
p.  192. 

One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  that  the  jailor  and 
his  family  were  not  baptized  according  to  the  prac- 
tice among  the  Baptists  of  modern  times.     For  we 


72 

learn  from  the  passage,  that  "they  were  baptized  the 
same  hour  of  the  night.''  No  such  case  can  be 
found  in  the  history  of  those  who  deny  infant  bap- 
tism. There  are  four  reasons  why  a  Baptist  minis- 
ter would  not  have  baptized  the  jailor  and  his  family, 
as  the  apostles  did,  after  about  half  an  hour's  teach- 
ing. 

1st.  He  would  not  have  deemed  them  sufficiently 
instructed.     They  were  all  idolaters  an  hour  before. 

2nd.  They  could  not  have  furnished  the  required 
evidences  of  their  being  the  subjects  of  a  gracious 
change.  It  is  common  for  Baptists  to  delay  bap- 
tism for  weeks,  sometimes  for  months. 

3d.  The  concurrence  of  the  church  could  not  be 
had.  Lydia  and  'the  brethren'  must  have  been  con- 
sulted. 

4th.  There  was  no  opportunity  for  a  public  pro- 
fession of  Christianity:  where  the  ^'imposing  ordin- 
ance^^ could  be  witnessed. 

I  judge  that  the  'pattern'  St.  Paul  worked  by,  dif- 
fered in  several  respects,  from  the  pattern  of  those 
who  hold  nothing  but  believer's  baptism. 

Perhaps  we  could  show,  (if  we  were  disposed  to 
cavil,  and  find  fault  with  our  neighbors,)  that  the 
practice  of  our  Baptist   friends  differs   very  widely 


13 

li'om  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  as  we  find  their's 
detailed  in  the  Acts. 

We  have  dwelt  longer  on  the  baptism  of  families, 
than  we  intended.  We  shall  therefore  proceed  to 
other  evidence  for  infant  baptism. 

We  next  adduce  what  our  Lord  says,  Mark  x,  13, 
14,  15,  16;  Luke  xviii,  15;  Matt,  xix,  13,— Suffer 
the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them 
not;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God^  With  this 
passage,  Mr.  B.  seems  somewhat  perplexed,  for  he 
endeavors  to  make  it  appear,  that  those  children 
might  have  been  capable  of  believing.  Ser.  p.  13, 
Strict,  p.  8,  he  says — "I  am  led  to  doubt  exceed- 
ingly, whether  the  children  brought  to  Jesus  were 
unconscious  babes,  or  whether  there  ever  were  any 
2inconscious  infants  brought  to  Jesus. ^^  JSTow  I  sup- 
pose if  they  had  been  capable  of 'believing,'  as  Mr. 
B.  supposes,  then  neither  the  disciples  or  even  a 
Baptist  preacher  would  have  rebuked  those  that 
brought  them,  or  have  forbidden  the  children;''  as 
believers  are  not  only  capable  of  being  'blessed,'  but 
have  a  right  to  baptism,  according  to  our  opponents. 
Luke  says  they  were  'infants.'  I  presume  their  in- 
fants  were  about  as  ^^unconscious'''  as  our  infants 
How  ridiculous  it  is  to  see  a  man  come  with  'Schre- 


74 

velius'  Lexicon,'  or  any  other  Lexicon  in  his  hand, 
to  tell,  or  prove  to  plain  people,  that,  although  Mark 
says  they  were  ^^yoiing  children;''''  and  Jesus  calls 
them  "Zi/^Ze  children;''^  and  Matthew  calls  them  ^'lit- 
tle children;''''  and  Luke  says  they  were  "infants;'*'' 
and  they  all  say  "they  were  brought''^  to  Jesus,  and 
"he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,^^  and  put  his  hands 
on  them,  "yet  there  never  were  any  unconscious  in- 
fants brought  to  Jesus!''''  "O!  shame,  where  is  thy 
blush!" 

In  his  Strictures,  Mr.  B.  has  tried  one  mode  of 
evading  this  case;  and  in  his  sermon,  another  mode, 
both  equally  absurd,  and  going  alike  to  show  how 
very  obnoxious  the  case  of  those  children  is  to  the 
Baptist  cause. 

The  phrase  "kingdom  of  God,"  and  "kingdom  of 
heaven,"  used  by  the  evangelists,  Matthew,  Mark 
and  Lvke,  I  hold  to  mean  generally,  the  church  un- 
der the  gospel  dispensation; — "The  kingdom  which 
(Daniel  said)  the  God  of  heaven  was  to  set  up  at  the 
end  of  the  seventy  weeks,"  represented  in  the  vision 
by  the  "little  stone  taken  out  of  the  mountain  with- 
out hands."  Dan.  ii,  44,  45.  I  am  not  only  sup- 
ported in  this  view  by  critics  generally,  but  also  by 
that  famous  Baptist  preacher,  Robert  Hall — Hall's 


75 

Works,  vol.  1,  page  372,  his  words  are — "the  king- 
dom of  God,  a  phrase  which  is  constantly  employed 
in  scripture,  to  denote  that  state  of  things  which  is 
placed  under  the  avowed  administration  of  the  Mes- 
siah.'' Now  Christ  says,  "of  such  ('infants,'  'little 
children')  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  says  to  the 
adults,  who  were  present^  "verily  I  say  unto  you, 
whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.''  It  is  wor- 
thy of  remark,  that  while  the  disciples  forbid  the 
children,  and  rebuked  those  that  brought  them,  the 
master  "was  much  displeased"  with  those  knoiving 
adults,  and  took  the  infants  in  his  bosom,  and  gave 
them  his  blessing.  A  Baptist  may  ask,  "how  could 
an  infant  be  blessed?"  they  are  "unconscious,"  "why 
should  infants  be  forced  without  their  choice"  to 
Christ,  and  have  his  blessing  put  upon  them  "with- 
out their  consent?"  "They  might  choose  to  reject 
Christ,  when  they  become  adults."  These  and  a 
thousand  other  questions  might  be  asked.  But  the 
how  and  the  why,  is  not  the  matter  to  be  settled  by 
us;  here  are  the  facts,  "he  took  them  in  his  arms," 
"he  blessed  them,"  he  said,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."     It  is  very  doubtful  with  me,  whether  Mr. 

B's  "extreme  doubts"  on  the  subject,  even  with  the 

8 


76 

use  of  his  ^Lexicon/  will  invalidate  in  the  minds  of 
my  readers,  the  force  of  these  facts.  It  is  hard  to 
reason  against  facts. 

But  suppose  for  argument  sake,  that  the  "kingdom 
of  God"  means  the  kingdom  of  glory,  our  opponents 
gain  nothing  by  it;  then  the  children  are  fit  for  heav- 
en, and  I  suppose,  are  fit  for  the  church  on  earth. 
What  Mr.  B.  says  in  his  strictures,  about  angels 
being  unfit  for  a  place  in  the  gospel  church,  is  alto- 
gether gratuitous; — where  is  it  written?  He  admits, 
Strictures,  p.  8,  that  "the  blood  of  Jesus  may  be  ap- 
plied to  children,"  fitting  them  for  heaven:  and  still 
he  says  ^Hhey  are  fitted  by  an  influence  that  never 
fits  men  for  the  gospel  kingdom.'^''  This  seems  like 
very  strange  doctrine.  1  suppose  Mr.  B.  holds  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  opposition  to  Pelagius;  if 
so,  infants  need  an  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ, 
to  purify,  or  make  them  holy;  then  the  question  oc- 
curs, how  is  this  blood  applied?  the  scriptures  attri- 
bute the  work  uniformly  to  the  Holy  Spirit:  hence 
the  angel  said,  Luke  i,  15,  of  John  the  Baptist,  that 
"he  shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from 
his  mother's  womb."  Now,  candid  reader,  do  you 
know  of  any  other  way,  to  fit  men  for  the  gospel 
church,  or  the  kingdom  of  glory,  than  by  an  applica- 


77 

tion  of  "the  blood  of  Jesus,  through  the  eternal 
spirit?"  We  read  of  but  one  song  among  the  re- 
deemed in  heaven; — they  all  were  redeemed  by  the 
blood  of  J  esus,  and  all  sing  one  song. 

Infants,  who  are  in  a  state  of  justification,  Rom.  v, 
18,  consequently  not  guilty,  having  never  commit- 
ted actual,  or  personal  transgression,  are  made  the 
model  for  adults,  "except  ye  be  converted,  and  be- 
come as  little  children;^''  "whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a  little  child,"  &c. 
Yet  our  Baptist  friends  admit  the  adults,  who  are 
formed  on  the  model,  and  reject  the  children,  who 
are  the  model  by  which  the  qualifications  of  the 
adult  are  set  forth.     Strange!  passing  strange! 

We  shall  be  told,  however,  "they  were  not  bap- 
tized, but  blessed," — where  is  the  proof?  "They 
were  to  be  received  in  the  name  of  Christ."  "They 
were  not  to  be  forbidden  to  come  to  him.''  The 
Baptists  say,  all  were  to  come  to  him  in  his  church 
by  baptism.  I,  therefore,  infer,  they  were  baptized, 
and  I  have  just  as  much  evidence  of  the  baptism  of 
those  children,  as  any  Baptist  can  find  in  the  New 
Testament,  of  the  baptism  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John; 
for  I  have  never  seen  any  evidence  that  Christ  ever 
applied  water  to  them,  hut  once,  and  then  he  only 


78 

washed  their  feet.  An  objector  will  say — but  we 
infer  they  were  baptized; — very  good.  You  will 
allow  me  the  same  liberty.  /  infer  those  children 
were  baptized,  for  surely,  they  obtained  some  grace, 
when  it  is  said  "Ae  blessed  them.''''  This  is  more 
than  can  be  said  with  truth,  of  many  an  adult  church 
member.  See  Watson's  Exp.  on  Matt,  xix,  13, 
14. 

The  Epistles  were  written  to  the  churches,  and 
were  to  be  read  in  the  churches;  and  children — young 
children — are  addressed,  and  appropriate  instruc- 
tion given  them,  equally  with  fathers,  wives,  ser- 
vants, &c.  We  shall  be  told  they  were  not  "uncon- 
scious babes.''  They  were  so  young  that  they  were 
"5''et  to  be  brought  wjo"  and  were  not  to  be  '■^pro- 
voTced'''  by  their  parents,  lest  they  should  be  "dis- 
couraged." They  had  been  "baptized  into  Christ;" 
— into  his  kingdom  as  subjects, — into  his  school  as 
scholars,  or  disciples, — and  were  to  ^^obey  their  pa- 
rents in  the  Lord  in  all  things,^''  and  to  be  ^'■brought 
up  in  the  instruction  and  discipline  of  the  Lord." 
Surely  such  were  not  adult  believers.  When  was 
a  Baptist  church  seen,  that  had  persons  in  it,  that 
needed  bringing  up.  They  rarely  baptize  any,  ex- 
cept those  who  have  reached  adult  age.     And  no 


79 
marvel,  when  some,  at  least,  of  their  ministers  pub- 
licly ridicule  the  practice  of  teaching  children  to 
pray,  and  scoff  at  the  efforts  made  in  the  Sabbath 
school  cause. 

1  never  heard,  or  read  of  more  than  two  instances, 
where  children  were  admitted  as  members  of  a 
Baptist  church,  as  early  as  twelve  years  of  age, — 
English  Bap.  Mag.  Jan.  1814, — one  of  those  youths 
was  eleven,  thejother  twelve.  Now,  are  children  to 
be  taught,  that  God  will  not  give  them  his  grace, 
nor  will  the  church  give  them  her  privileges,  until 
they  reach  that  age?  If  our  friends  can  furnish  ex- 
amples of  earlier  piety,  we  shall  rejoice  in  it,  but  it 
surely  is  undeniable,  that  young  people  are  not  as 
generally  pious  among  those  who  deny  infant  bap- 
tism as  among  other  denom.inations.  It  ought  to  be 
matter  of  serious  inquiry,  why  it  is,  that  most  of  the 
members  of  Baptist  churches,  did  not  become 
pious,  until  adult  age;  while  the  case  is  different  I 
believe,  in  all  other  churches.  There  is  no  prece- 
dent in  scripture,  with  regard  to  the  particular  age 
at  which  the  ordinance  ought  to  be  given,  except 
one.  That  is  the  case  of  Jesus,  "who  began  to  be 
about   thirty    years   of  age."     We    suppose   "our 

friends,"  who  talk  so  much  of  "following  Jesus  down 

8^ 


so 

to  Jordan,"  and  "fulfilling  all  righteousness,"— would 
hardly  reconimend  all  persons  to  defer  baptism  until 
the  age  of  thirty— although  this  is  a  part  of  Christ's 
example.  More  of  this  hereafter.  When  they  tell 
us  we  cannot  find  the  word  "infant"  in  connection 
with  baptism  in  the  scriptures — and  therefore  have 
"no  thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  it — "no  scripture  pre- 
cedent," I  answer,  they  cannot  find  the  words,  boy, 
girl,  old  man,  young  man,  yet,  they  occasionally  bap- 
tize some  of  each.  This  is  very  much  like  a  man 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity^  because  he 
does  not  find  the  word  Trinity  in  the  scriptures. 

I  shall  produce  one  more  evidence  from  the  scrip- 
tures, 1  Cor.  vii,  14,  "for  the  unbelieving  husband 
is  sanctified  by  the  wife,"  &;c.  "else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy.''  Mr.  B.  has 
given — Ser.  p.  1^,  13 — a  caricature  of  the  argument 
of  Pedobaptists  on  this  passage — "he  says  some  of 
them  contend  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  be- 
cause they  are  jmre,  and  others  contend  that  they 
need  it  because  they  are  impure,"  and  then  gravely 
says,  "but  I  cannot  see  the  force  of  the  argument." 
What  argument?  if  he  had  taken  as  much  pains  to 
present  the  Pedobaptist  view  of  the  passage,  as  he 
has,  to  give  the  fanciful  and  far-fetched  exposition  of 


81 

the  Rev.  Mr.  Dagg — the  reader  might  have  had 
some  idea  of  the  argumeat  for  infant  baptism,  drawn 
from  the  passage. 

In  many  places  in  the  scriptures,  Ex.  xix,  6;  Lev. 
X,  10.  2  Chron.  xxiii,  6;  Chron.  xxii,19;  Ezek.  xxii, 
26;  Luke  ii,  23;  Acts,  x,  28,  and  xi,  8,  9;  Heb.  ix, 
1 3,  the  word  "holy"  is  applied  to  things  or  persons, 
separated  from  common,  and  devoted  to  religious 
uses;  separated  from  the  world  and  devoted  to  God: 
and  is  often  applied  to  the  visible  church,  under  dif- 
ferent dispensations.  Hence  the  Jews  are  called  a 
"holy -people;"  and  Peter  calls  the  Christian  church 
"a  holy  nation."  They  were  so,  professional ly, 
being  "separated  from  the  world  to  God," — al- 
though each  individual  member,  was  not  '''■intrinsi- 
cally holy?^ 

While  our  opponents  say,  that  the  word  "holy" 
as  applied  to  the  children  in  the  text,  signifies  that 
they  were  "legitimate"  children,  they  do  not  pretend 
to  furnish  a  single  text  from  the  scriptures,  where 
the  word  haS  that  sense;  while  they  expect  us  to 
take  their  interpretation  without  proof,  the  good  Mr. 
Baxter  has  shown,  (Baxter's  Inf.  Ch.  Membership,) 
that  in  near  six  hundred  'places  in  the  bible,  the 
word  has   the  sense  which  I  have  given  it  above, 


82 

i.  e.  "«  separation  to  God.'^''  This  evidence  1  should 
think,  must  be  decisive  vf\i\\  all,  who  do  not  inter- 
pret scripture  by  a  creed,  but  are  content  to  take 
their  creed  out  of  the  scriptures.  If  then  the  chil- 
dren of  Christians  are  "holy"  i.e.  "separated  to 
God,-'  are  they  separated  to  God  in  the  church,  or 
out  of  it?  If  it  is  replied  they  are  separated  to  him 
in  the  church — then  they  must  be  church  members, 
and  that  is  what  we  wish  to  prove;  if  on  the  other 
hand  it  be  replied,  they  are  "separated  to  God"  in 
the  world,  then  truly  they  present  an  anomalous 
case,  they  are  truly  "peculiar."  They  do  not  be- 
long to  the  church,  they  do  not  belong  to  the  world. 
"The  church  is  in  Christ;''— "the  world  lieth  in  the 
wicked  one,"  but  those  hapless  children  are  in 
neither;  they  neither  belong  to  God,  nor  the  devil! 
If  they  are  not  "unclean"  but  "holy,"  the  apostle 
clearly  establishes,  or  asserts,  a  distinction  between 
the  children  of  heathens,  who  were  unclean,  and  de- 
voted to  heathen  gods,  and  the  children  of  professing 
Christians,  which  were  separated  and  devoted  to 
God.  "The  unbelieving  husband  (being  one  flesh 
with  the  believing  wife)  is  sanctified  by  the  wife," 
and  (vice  versa)  so  that  the  children  are  not  'un- 
clean,'  or  left  in  a  heathen  state,  but  "separated  to 


83 

God"  with  the  believing  parent.  I  am  supported  in 
this  opinion  by  the  learned  Whitby.  His  language 
is — "And  though  one  of  the  parents  be  still  a  hea- 
then, yet  is  the  denomination  to  be  taken  from  the 
better,  and  so  their  offspring  are  to  be  esteemed,  not 
as  heathens,  i.e.  unclean,  but  holy,  as  all  Christians 
by  denomination  are."  See  Whitby  on  the  place. 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  held  the  same  view  of  this 
passage.  "Hence  then  (says  W^hitby)  the  argument 
for  infant  baptism  runs  thus:  If  the  holy  seed  among 
the  Jews,  was  therefore  to  be  circumcised,  and  be 
made  federally  holy,  by  receiving  the  sign  of  the 
covenant,  and  being  admitted  into  the  number  of 
God's  "holy  people,"  because  they  were  born  in 
sanctity,  or  were  seminally  holy;  for  the  root  being 
holy.,  so  are  the  branches  also;  then  by  like  reason, 
the  holy  seed  of  Christians,  ought  to  be  admitted  to 
baptism,  and  receive  the  sign  of  the  Christian  cove- 
nant." 

W^hat  merit  'Mr.  Dagg's  exposition'  may  possess 
as  a  whole,  1  am  unprepared  to  say,  but  the  speci- 
men Mr.  B.  has  given  of  it,  surely  does  not  present 
it  in  a  very  favorable  light.  Hear  him — "If  a  be- 
lieving husband  must  leave  his  wife  because  she  is 
an  unbeliever,  for  the  same  reason  your  offspring 


84 

must  be  cast  off,  for  they  would  upon  the  principle 
herein  involved,  he  as  unclean  on  account  of  unbelief, 
to  the  believing  parents,  as  an  unbelieving  husband 
or  wife,  would  be  to  the  other  who  is  a  believer." 
But  perhaps  Mr.  B.  may  bring  a  Lexicon  to  prove 
that  the  term  translated  children,  means  'posterity.' 
Certainly  it  does,  and  so  includes  the  youngest  in- 
fants. Now,  although  Mr.  D.  and  Mr.  B.  both  talk 
about  infants  or  children  ^heingin  unbelief,^  one  says 
they  are  'unclean  on  account  of  unbelief;'  the  other 
says  'infants  are  baptized  in  unbelief.'  I  should  like 
those  gentlemen  to  furnish  one  single  text  of  scrip- 
ture, where  either  children  or  infants,  have  unbelief 
attributed  to  them,  or  are  said  to  be  'in  unbelief.' 
There  is  a  manifest  discrepancy,  not  to  say  a  flat 
contradiction,  in  the  language  used  by  Mr.  B.  in  his 
Strictures,  p.  10,  and  in  his  Sermon,  p.  7  and  26. 
When  reasoning,  in  the  Strictures,  on  the  salvation  of 
infants,  he  says — "The  gospel  cannot  condemn  them, 
because  they  cannot  be  guilty  of  the  sin  of  unbelief. ^^ 
In  his  Sermon,  when  he  wants  to  exclude  them  from 
the  rite  of  baptism,  he  says, — "I  will  engage  to  prove, 
my  hearers,  that  the  commission,  actually  excludes 
all  unbelievers,  whether  unconscious  infants,  or  un- 
believing adults.''     Again  he  says — "Thousands  of 


85 

believers  admit  (i.  e.  baptism)  because  they  were 
baptized  while  in  unbelief  /  f^^  I  think  this  needs  a 
salvo;  there  is  at  least  'a  glorious  uncertainty''  about 
it. 

We  have  seen  from  the  evidence  produced  above, 
that  the  children  of  those  Corinthians  were  not  'un- 
clean' but  'holy,'  and  as  no  instance  can  be  given  of 
a  person  being  called  holy,  who  was  not  a  member 
of  the  visible  church  of  God;  the  inference  is  unde- 
niable that  holy  infants  belonged  to  the  visible  church 
of  Christ. 

"Having  thus  established  their  membership,  I  shall 
take  their  baptism  for  granted,  till  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren admit  people  into  their  churches  without  the 
ordinance."     Dr.  Isaac,  p.  164. 

Mr.  B.  asks  a  question  on  this  point  which  I  must 
say  a  word  in  reply  to.  "Was  baptism  designed 
for  the  benefit  of  holy  beings'?  The  commission  in 
that  case  ought  to  be  read,  go  ye,  &;c.,  and  baptize  all 
you  find  who  are  holy.  Upon  that  plan,  all  adults 
would  be  excluded,  seeing  all  adults  are  sinners." 
He  says,  Ser.  p.  23, — "Baptism  brings  us,  after  re- 
generation, into  the  visible  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Are  thay  ^regenerated,''  and  yet  sinners — '■buried 
with  Christ  in  baptism,'  and  yet  sinners— 'crucified 


86 

with  Christ,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroy- 
ed,'^ and  yet  sinners?  The  apostle  says,  'their  chil- 
dren were  holy;'  and  take  Mr.  B's  interpretation  of 
the  word,  and  say  they  were  holy  in  the  longest, 
broadest,  highest  sense  of  that  word,  even  then,  I 
suppose,  candid  reader,  you  will  admit,  that  holiness 
would  furnish  as  valid  a  reason  for  baptism  as  sin 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  the  holiness  of  the 
^holy  Jesus''  did  not  disqualify  him  for  baptism!! 

We  remark  in  evidence  farther,  the  antiquity  of 
the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  may  be  considered  as 
strong  evidence  on  the  subject.  If  the  baptism  of 
children  was  not  practiced  by  the  apostles,  and  by 
the  primitive  Christians,  when  and  where  did  the 
practice  commence? 

To  this  question.  Baptist  writers  generally  do  not 
attempt  to  give  an  answer,  because  they  cannot. 
It  is  an  innovation,  say  they,  not  upon  the  circum- 
stances of  a  sacrament,  but  upon  its  essential  princi- 
ple. And  yet  its  introduction  produced  no  struggle; 
was  never  noticed  by  any  general,  or  provincial 
council;  and  excited  no  controversy;  this  itself,  is 
strong  presumptive   evidence  of  its  early  antiquity. 

Our  Baptist  friends,  from  time  to  time,  have  at- 
tempted to  find  its  origin.     Mr.  B.   says,  Ser.  p.  27 


87 

—It  was  introduced  by  the  Romish  apostacy,  and 
'calls  on  all  candid  Pedobaptist  Protestants,  as  they 
would  desire  the  world  to  be  delivered  from  the 
abominations  of  Popery,  to  abandon  this  Popish  cer- 
emony.' This  reminds  me  of  the  famous  argument 
of  some  people,  against  the  doctrmes  of  Christ's  di- 
vinity, and  the  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead; 
that  they  ought  to  be  rejected  by  Protestants,  because 
they  were  a  part  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Query — Is  this  the  cause  why  such  large  bod- 
ies of  men,  who  have  denied  infant  baptism  at  dif- 
ferent periods,  in  Germany,  Poland,  &c.,  have  been 
Socinians?!!  See  Benedict's  Hist,  of  the  Baptists, 
p.  172 '3 '4  '5. 

I  suppose  that  it  is  the  part  of  charity  and  candor, 
to  ^rejoice  in  the  truth,''  whether  that  truth  be 
found  among  Protestants,  or  Catholics — with  Luther, 
or  the  Pope.  Unfortunately  for  our  Baptist  friends, 
however,  infant  baptism  is  not  only  found  with  Lu- 
ther, and  the  Pope,  but  with  the  Greek  church, 
that  never  had  any  connection  with  the  Pope,  from 
the  earliest  periods  of  her  history.  And  if,  as  the 
Baptists  say, — Benedict's  history  of  the  Baptists,  page 
58,  59,  60;  infant  baptism  was  introduced  in  Africa, 

from  the  first  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century;  con- 
9 


8S 

fined  at  first  to  catechised  minors,  and  in  about  forty 
years,  decided  to  be  the  rite  of  infants,  by  an  eccle- 
siastical council,  how  did  it  happen,  that  there  was 
but  little  more  said  on  the  subject  until  the  year 
416?  And  how  did  it  happen  that  although  the 
Vandals  overran  that  part  of  Africa  about  "the  year 
429,  and  the  Catholics  fled  into  Europe,  carrying  in- 
fant baptism  with  them,"  "that  its  entrance  into  Eu- 
rope was  of  a  later  date,"  and  "the  first  ecclesiastical 
canon  in  Europe  on  the  subject,  was"  as  late  as  "the 
sixth  century?"  "And  the  first  imperial  law  on  the 
subject  in  the  eighth  century,  by  the  emperor  Charle- 
magne?" 

Mr.  Judson  supposed,  that  infant  baptism  was  in- 
troduced towards  the  close  of  the  second  century — 
while  Mr.  Broaddus  considers  it  a  relic  of  Popery; 
although  Popery  did  not  exist,  as  such,  until  after 
the  sixth  century, — this  is  only  a  difference  of 
opinion  between  two  Baptist  preachers,  each  reject- 
ing infant  baptism;  one  dating  its  origin  only  400 
years  later  than  the  other.  No  marvel  that  we  should 
differ  from  them — when  they  cannot  agree  among 
themselves,  on  the  origin  of  so  great  an  innovation 
upon  '•'•gospel  order.^^ 

Now  we  would  ask  Mr.  Benedict,  and  our  Baptist 


89 

friends — where  were  the  Baptist  churches,  all  this 
time?  The  descendants  of  "their  ancient  brother," 
John  the  Baptist;  were  there  none  found  faithful 
among  the  primitive  Christians,  to  utter  the  voice 
of  warning,  on  the  subject  of  this  great  innovation? 
There  was  none  found,  candid  reader,  to  object,  ex- 
cept Tertullian,  and  he  objected  as  much  to  the 
baptism  of  "unmarried  believers,"  as  he  did  to  in- 
fants; and  admitted  the  validity  of  'infant  baptism,' 
where  there  was  danger  of  death.  Of  course  then, 
he  was  not  a  Baptist. 

Mr.  Benedict  says,  History,  page  92, — "We  date 
the  origin  of  our  sentiments,  and  the  beginning  of 
our  denomination,  about  the  year  of  our  Lord,  29  or 
30;  for  at  that  period,  John  the  Baptist  began  to 
immerse  professed  believers  in  Jordan  and  Enon, 
and  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord's 
anointed,  and  for  the  setting  up  of  his  kingdom."  It 
is  generally  admitted  that  John  baptized  hundreds 
of  thousands.  If  this  was  the  origin  of  the  Baptist 
denomination,  what  became  of  all  those  thousands, 
for  about  twelve  hundred  years,  that  there  was  none 
found  to  demur  at  infant  baptism?!  Surely  they 
could  not  have  been  in  existence  in  Christendom,  or 
they  did  not  look  upon  the  baptism  of  'unconscious 


90 

babes'  in  the  same  light  that  modern  Baptists  do; 
one  or  the  other  of  those  conclusions  we  think  inev- 
itably true.  Mr.  Broaddus,  Ser.  page  21,  22,  at- 
tempts to  dispose  of  the  'testimony  of  the  fathers'  in 
a  very  summary  manner;  and  in  support  of  his  views, 
quotes  Dr.  Hill.  Now  if  the  'testimony  of  the  fath- 
ers,' having  been  in  the  keeping  of  the  church  _  of 
Rome,  is  sufficient  reason,  as  those  gentlemen  sup- 
pose, why  it  should  be  rejected,  I  would  ask,  if  the 
infidel  might  not  urge  the  same  reason,  against  his 
receiving  the  New  Testament  scriptures?  The 
classing  'infant  baptism'  with  'infant  communion,' 
transubstantiation,  &c.  is  altogether  gratuitous.  It 
stands  on  different  grounds. 

Let  us  hear  on  this  subject  the  sentiment  of  the 
intelligent  and  candid  Baptist  writer.  Dr.  Gale;  he 
says — "I  will  grant  it  is  probable,  that  what  all  or 
most  of  the  churches  practised  immediately  after 
the  apostle's  times,  had  been  appointed  or  practised 
by  the  apostles  themselves;  for  it  is  hardly  to  be  im- 
agined that  any  considerable  body  of  these  ancient 
Christians,  and  much  less  that  the  whole,  should  so 
soon  deviate  from  the  customs  and  injunctions  of 
their  venerable  founders,  whose  authority  they  held 
so  sacred.  New  opinions  or  practices  are  usually 
introduced  by  degrees,  and  not    without  opposition. 


91 

Therefore,  in  regard  to  baptism,  a  thing  of  such 
universal  concern,  and  daily  practice,  I  allow  it  to 
be  very  probable,  that  the  primitive  churches  kept 
to  the  apostolic  pattern.  I  verily  believe,  that  the 
primitive  church  maintained,  in  this  case,  an  exact 
conformity  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  which, 
doubtless,  agreed  entirely  with  Christ's  institutions.' 
See  Gale's  reflections  on  Wall,  page  398. 

I  shall  adduce,  now,  two  or  three  testimonies  from 
the  fathers,  to  show  what  was  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  church. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  in  the  second  century, 
speaks  of  some  who  were  then  sixty  or  seventy 
years  old,  'who  were  made  disciples'  or  members 
*in  their  infancy.^  But  Mr.  B.  referring  to  his  Lex- 
icon, says.  Strictures,  page  7,  the  word  rendered 
'infant'  may  be  rendered  youth.  I  shall  not  stop 
here  to  dispute  about  this  word.  Ireneus,  who  wrote 
within  67  years  of  the  apostolic  times,  says,  "Christ 
came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself;  all,  I  mean,  who 
by  him  are  baptized  unto  God;  infants  and  little  ones, 
and  children  and  youths,"  Dr.  Wall,  In.  Bap.  vol.  1, 
ch.  3;  he  is  said  to  have  been  personally  acquainted 
with  Polycarp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  had  heard 

him  preach. 
9* 


92 

Origeti,  of  the  Greek  church,  who  was  a  man  of 
great  learning,  and  acquainted  extensively  with  the 
church;  and  who  had  good  opportunity  to  know  the 
practice  of  the  apostles,  as  his  great  grandfather  was 
a  Christian,  and  cotemporary  with  the  apostles,  says, 
'infants,  by  the  usage  of  the  church,  are  baptized* 
The  church  had  a  tradition,  or  command,  from  the 
apostles,  to  give  baptism  to  infants;''^  Wall's  Defence, 
page  372,  383,  Dr.  Doddridge's  Lee.  p.  9.  Mr. 
Judson  tried  in  vain  to  overturn  this  testimony. 

Cyprian,  and  the  council  of  Ca?'thage,  in  the  year 
253,  where  66  bishops  met,  not  to  decide  whether 
infants  were  to  be  baptized,  but  whether  they  might 
be  baptized  before  the  eighth  day;  and  they  were 
unanimously  of  opinion,  'that  they,'  infants,  'might 
be  baptized  as  soon  as  they  were  born.' — Cyprian, 
Epist.  66.  Lord  Chancellor  King,  in  his  account 
of  the  primitive  church,  remarks,  "Here  then  is  a 
synodical  decree  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  formal 
as  can  possibly  be  expected,  which  is  of  more  weight 
than  the  private  judgment  of  a  father,  and  more  au- 
thentic; as  he  might  give  his  own  opinion  only,  but 
this  (the  decision  of  a  synod,)  denotes  the  common 
practice  and  usage  of  the  whole  ckurch.'^^  Inquiry 
into  the  Constitution,  &;c.  part  ii,  ch  3. 


93 

Pelagius  maintained  infant  baptism,  although  the 
practice  made  against  his  heresy.  He  denied  orig- 
inal sin — and  was  the  author  of  what  is  called  Pelag- 
ianism.  He  lived  300  years  after  the  apostles. 
He  says,  'men  slander  me,  as  if  I  denied  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  to  infants,  I  never  heard  of  any, 
not  even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  bap- 
tism to  infants.'    Wall's  history  of  In.  Bap.  p.  62. 

This  man  had  every  inducement  to  deny  infant 
baptism,  if  he  could  have  found  a  shadow  of  evidence 
to  have  borne  him  out.  The  usage  of  the  church 
in  this  respect,  was  a  standing  irrefragable  argument 
against  his  heresy. 

So  much  for  the  'testimony  of  the  fathers.'  You 
can  judge,  candid  reader,  whether  it  is  to  be  passed 
over  as  nothing  worth,  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  those 
who  'deny  infant  baptism,'  have  no  evidence  to  put 
in  bar. 

The  Christian  church,  was  early  divided  in  sen- 
timent, on  doctrine,  and  split  into  sects,  who  ever 
kept  upon  each  other  a  watchful  eye;  and  the  'pat- 
tern' could  not  have  been  so  altered,  as  to  admit  the 
universal  prevalence  of  such  an  innovation,  without 
an  alarm  being  given.  'I  speak  as  unto  wise  men, 
Judge  ye  what  I  say.' 


94 

Our  Baptist  friends  try  to  make  out  their  relation- 
ship with  the  Waldenses,  those  witnesses  for  the 
truth  in  the  dark  ages.  I  confess,  I  was  a  little  amus- 
ed, at  the  attempt  of  Mr.  Benedict  in  his  history,  on 
this  subject. 

That  Peter  De  Bruis,  and  his  followers,  (who  were 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  people  called  Waldenses,) 
did  deny  infant  baptism  is  undeniable,  but  on  differ- 
ent grounds  from  our  Baptist  friends.  This  man 
arose  in  France  about  1200  years  after  Christ,  and 
held,  that  infants  could  not  be  saved,  and  therefore 
ought  not  to  be  baptized,  'as  they  could  not  work  out 
their  own  salvation.' 

They  held  about  the  same  proportion  to  the  great 
body  of  the  Waldenses,  who  held  infant  baptism,  as 
the  'Seventh-day'  Baptists  do,  to  the  great  body  of 
the  Baptists  who  hold  'the  Lord's-day'  as  the  Sab- 
bath. If  1  were  to  report  that  the  Baptists  in  the 
United  States,  keep  the  'seventh-day'  as  their  Sab- 
bath, I  should  be  about  as  near  right,  as  Baptist 
writers  are,  when  they  say  that  the  Waldenses  'deni- 
ed infant  baptism,'  for  those  who  have  denied  it 
among  them,  have  been  as  about  one  to  thirty.  Dr. 
Miller  on  Bap.  p.  40,  41,  42,  43. 

In  an  expose  of  the  views  of  the  Waldenses,  made 


95 

as  early  as  the  I2tli  century,  although  they  oppose 
many  errors  of  the  Romish  church — such  as  praying 
to  saints,  purgatory,  masses,  &:c.;  and  say  that  there 
are  but  two  sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper;  yet  they  utter  not  one  word  against  'infant 
baptism.'  Watson's  Die.  Art.  Waldenses.  They 
had  bishops  among  them;  "and  after  the  opening  of 
the  reformation  under  Luther,  the  Waldenses  sought 
intercourse  with  the  Reformed  churches  of  Geneva 
and  France;  held  communion  with  them;  received 
ministers  from  them;  acknowledged  them  as  breth- 
ren in  the  Lord,  &c.  Now  it  is  well  known,  that 
those  churches  held  infant  baptism;  and  this  fact 
alone,  we  think  sufficient  to  show  that  those  pious 
people  were  Pedobaptists.''     Dr.  Miller,  p.  43. 

Why  should  those  who  deny  infant  baptism,  wish 
to  prove,  that  the  Waldenses  were  their  predeces- 
sors or  ancestors?  If  they  could  make  this  out,  they 
would  then  be  900  years  from  the  days  of  John  the 
Baptist;  for  Mr.  Benedict,  in  his  history,  can  furnish 
no  certain  evidence  that  the  Waldenses  had  any  ex- 
istence earlier  than  the  9th  century.  Let  our  op- 
posing brethren,  give  the  world  'a  thus  saith  the 
Lord'  for  rejecting  infants,  and  then  there  is  an  end 
to  the  controversy.     No  doubt,  from  the  earliest  his- 


96 

tory  of  the  Waldenses,  Albigenses,  &lc.  there  has 
been  a  difference  of  opinion  among  them,  on  many 
points,  as  there  is  now,  among  different  denomina- 
tions of  Christians,  not  excepting  the  Baptists.  There 
may  have  been  some  besides  the  followers  of  Peter 
de  Bruis^  who  differed  with  the  great  body  of  their 
brethren  for  some  reason,  about  infant  baptism;  but 
surely  this  does  not  justify  an  effort  to  make  out  that 
that  people,  as  a  people^  were  not  Pedobaptists.  I 
know  a  number  of  Baptists  who  are  in  favor  of  free 
communion,  and  some  who  have  communed  with 
Christians  of  other  denominations,  until  they  endan- 
gered their  membership  in  their  own  church  thereby; 
and  I  might  show  from  the  works  of  that  celebrated 
man,  'John  Bunyan,'  that  he  admitted  members  to 
his  communion,  who  had  been  baptized  in  infancy, 
and  had  never  received  what  is  called  'believers'  bap- 
tism;' Bunyan's  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  216,  217,  218, 
219,  but  would  it  be  fair,  and  honorable  in  me,  to 
draw  a  general  conclusion  from  these  particular 
cases?  and  then  say  Hhe  Baptists  in  Virginia  are  in 
favor  of  free  communion;  and  the  Baptists  in  Europe, 
in  the  days  of  Bunyan,  admitted  persons  to  church 
fellowship  without  believers'  baptism?'  surely  nothing 
would  be  more  unfair. 


97    . 

We  have  seen  from  historical  evidence,  that  the 
church  for  1200  years,  (not  to  say  for  1522  years,) 
always  held  infant  baptism,  and  during  all  that  time 
none  never  rejected  it,  on  any  such  grounds  as  are 
now  urged  by  our  Baptist  brethren.  He  who  can, 
in  view  of  all  this  evidence,  persist  in  his  opposition 
to  the  baptism  of  children,  must,  it  appears  to  me, 
be  prepared  to  make  a  sacrifice  of  all  historical  evi- 
dence, at  the  altar  of  a  prejudice  that  is  both  deaf, 
and  blind;  too  deaf  to  hear  the  voice  of  reason,  and 
too  blind  to  see  the  light  of  truth.  This  language 
is  strong;  because  it  is  the  result  of  strong  convic- 
tion, on  my  own  mind.  I  have  long  since  learned 
that  where  men  can  laugh,  and  sneer,  at  the  consci- 
entious conduct  of  people  as  pious  as  themselves,  be- 
cause they  choose  to  dedicate  their  children  to  God 
in  baptism;  and  can  make  sport  with  the  feelings  of 
a  mother,  who  wishes  to  have  her  child  given  to 
God  in  his  ordinance  before  it  dies,  (Mr.  B's  Ser.  p. 
26,)  I  say  1  have  long  since  learned,  that,  with  such 
(at  least)  no  other  language  will  make  any  impres- 
sion. You  had  as  well  attempt  to  "draw  out  levia- 
thian  with  a  hook."  Job,  xli.  Such  in  the  language 
of  St.  Paul,  Titus  i,  13,  need  to  be  'rebuked  sharply;' 
and  though  they  may  not  be  induced  to  be  ^sound  in 


98 

faitK' — they  may  perhaps  be  taught  to  treat  with 
Christian  courtesy,  those  who,  as  Bunyan  says,  "may 
not  see  it  their  duty,  to  jump  with  them.''''  A  candid 
Baptist  friend,  once  said  to  me,  it  would  not  do  for  us 
to  admit  infant  baptism.  Why?  said  T;  his  reply 
was,  "We  would  be  like  farmers  who  cut  off  their 
corn  while  it  is  young."  Thank  you  for  your  can- 
dor, was  my  reply.  You  think  that  if  all  the  chil- 
dren were  baptized  in  infancy,  there  would  be  no 
corn  gathered  into  the  Baptist  garner,  in  adult  age. 
I  have  often  wondered,  why  the  baptism  of  children 
should  so  disturb  our  "differing  brethren."  But  I 
perceive,  in  Mr.  B's  Sermon,  p.  26,  a  little  Hght  on 
this  point,— he  says,  '•it  is  a  positive  eviV  Why  so.^ 
Look,  reader,  lower  down  on  the  same  page,  and  you 
will  see;  because  by  it,  Hhousands  who  are  brought 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,'  are  led  to  refuse  'be- 
lievers' baptism.'  This,  to  be  sure,  is  a  sore  evil;  but 
happily,  not  so  much  to  the  convert,  as  to  those  who 
would  proselyte  him,  by  teazing  him  about  'believers' 
baptism.'  A  man  goes  on  in  sin,  his  baptized  neigh- 
bor never  reproves  him  or  talks  seriously  to  him, 
about  the  'salvation'  of  his  precious  soul;  he  goes  to  a 
Pedobaptist  meeting;  is  awakened  and  converted  to 
God — -returns  home — soon  has  a  visit  from  his  neigh- 


99 

bor.  He  wonders  what  has  brought  his  friend  so 
early  to  see  him. 

Neighbor.  I  wish  to  have  a  httle  conversation 
with  you. 

Convert.     Certainly. 

Neighbor.  I  was  pleased  to  hear  that  you  have 
'''-found  grace'''  at  the  ****  meeting;  I  wish  you  to 
tell  me  your  experience. 

The  convert  proceeds  to  detail  his  experience. 

Neighbor.  "  Very  good;''''  "a  gospel  experience,^'* 
^^very  inuch  like  my  own;''''  "now  all  you  want  is  one 
thing:'' 

Convert.  Pray  neighbor  what  is  that?  I  am 
happy  in  God;  "believing,  I  rejoice  with  joy  un- 
speakable." I  am  not  conscious  of  wanting  any 
thing  but  ^hnore  grace.''''     What  do  you  mean? 

Neighbor.  Why — why — the  "Master  says"  "be- 
lieve and  be  baptized:'* 

Convert.  Oh,  is  that  what  you  mean?  On  that 
subject  I  have  no  concern.  I  was  baptized  in  infan- 
cy; and  I  now  have  the  thing  signified,  i.  e.  "the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost,'' — just  as  the  Jewish 

*  I  cannot  find  those  words  in  this  form  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament.   They  remind  me  of  the  old  colored  man's  text — 
"The  Lord  says,  be  baptized  in  much  ivater.'" 
10 


100 

children  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant  in  child- 
hood, and  at  adult  age^  became  'circumcised  in  heart.' 

NeAghhor.  Well,  but  you  must  obey  the  "com- 
mandment." 

Convert,  Neighbor,  my  parents  were  Christians, 
and  you  cannot  show  me  a  commandment,  or  a  pre- 
cedent  for  baptizing  the  children  of  Christian  pa' 
rents  at  adult  age.  And  moreover,  I  cannot  join  a 
church,  whose  confession  of  faith  I  do  not  believe; 
and  I  could  not  receive  believers'  baptism,  if  I  wish- 
ed it  J  without  joining  your  church. 

Neighbor.  Why  friend,  as  for  the  confession  of 
faith,  you  ?ieed  not  mind  that,  for  one  of  our  elders 
said,  "he  would  not  give  the  confession  of  faith  room 
in  his  saddle-bags."  And  again,  we  hold  nearly  the 
same  doctrines  those  do,  among  whom  you  found 
the  Lord;  as  you  may  find  from  our  preaching;  we 
may  differ  a  little  about  falling  from  grace, — but 
that  is  not  much  you  know." 

Convert.  Well,  friend,  I  cannot  judge  so  much 
what  men  believe  in  our  day,  from  their  preaching 
as  from  their  confessions  of  faith. 

Neighbor.     I  wish  you  well  neighbor.  Farewell. 

Convert.  I  wish  you  the  same — for  I  trust,  aS 
St.  Paul  says — ^^tve  have  been  both  baptized  by  one 
spirit  into  Christ.''^ 


101 

They  part,  and  he,  who  would  have  "compassed 
sea  and  land"  to  have  made  a  proselyte  of  his  neigh- 
bor, says,  as  he  walks  mournfully  home,  filled  with 
disappointment  and  chagrin,  "it  is  a  positive 
EVIL,"  that  my  neighbor  was  baptized  in  infancy. 

We  have  seen,  candid  reader,  in  the  course  of  this 
argument, 

1.  God  has  but  one  church,  and  never  had  more. 
— Christ  was  the  angel,  that  was  with  the  church 
"iw  the  wilderness;  and  they  tempted  Christ.^^  1 
Cor.  X.  9. 

2.  In  that  church,  the  right  of  infants  to  member- 
ship was  admitted  for  two  thousand  years. 

3.  That  right  never  was  done  away  by  any 
"statute  of  repeal." 

4.  The  only  two  general  covenants  that  God  ever 
made  with  man,  he  made  with  Adam,  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden,*  the  covenant  of  works,  which  was 
broken.  And  the  covenant  of  grace  in  Christ. 

5.  This  .covenant  of  grace,  was  the  same  that 
was  confirmed  to  Abraham,  (four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  before  the  giving  of  the  law,)  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  then  made  the  seal  and  sign. 

*il  am  happy  to  find  this  view  borne  out,  by  the  old  Phil- 
adelphia Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  printed  by  Benjamin 
Franklin  in  1742,— pa^es  72,  73,  74. 


102 

6.  This  covenant  recognized  the  right  of  children 
to  membership,  and  admitted  them  to  the  sign  of  the 
covenant. 

7.  This  covenant  was  fully  developed  under  the 
gospel  dispensation,  when  Christ  became  visibly 
*'the  minister  of  the  covenant." 

8.  Under  the  gospel,  the  children  of  the  Jews 
were  not  rejected,  because  none  were  broken  off  from 
"the  true  olive,"  except  for  "unbelief,"  of  which 
Jewish  infants  were  incapable. 

9.  Christ  encouraged  the  reception  of  children  in 
his  name,  and  blessed  them;  and  put  no  clause  in  the 
commission  of  the  apostles,  to  change  the  order 
which  had  existed,  ivith  regard  to  children,  for 
thousands  of  years, 

10.  They  all,  being  Jews,  would  so  understand  the 
commission  as  to  admit  the  children,  unless  forbid- 
den so  to  do. 

11.  The  baptism  of  families  was  practised  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  and  it  is  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose there  were  no  infants  among  them. 

12.  The  church  practised  it  for  at  least  twelve 
hundred  years  without  opposition,  except  from  Ter- 
tullian,  and  the  Petrobrusians;  who  opposed  it  on 
different  grounds  than  those  on  which  our  Baptist 
friends  oppose  it. 


103 

13.  If  it  had  been  an  innovation  upon  "gospel  or- 
der,'' or  a  departure  from  the  ^^original  pattern" 
some  Baptist,  surely,  would  have  raised  his  voice 
against  it,  in  twelve  centuries.  An  innovation  of  the 
kind,  could  not  have  been  introduced  without  a  spirit- 
ed controversy;  the  existence  of  which  controversy, 
no  Baptist  has  ever  been  able  to  show. 

14.  And  finally,  that  the  Waldenses,  those  oppo- 
sers  of  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish  church,  were 
generally  Pedobaptists. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  the  general  argument, 
we  say, — he  who  takes  the  Baptist  view  of  this  sub- 
ject, has  to  suppose,  on  the  contrary,  that  when  the 
gospel  dispensation  was  opened,  a  dispensation  of 
larger  promises  and  increased  privileges  and  libe- 
rality, the  right  of  infants  to  membership  was  taken 
away;  and  that  this  took  place  without  one  hint  or 
reason  being  given  for  it;  without  any  single  men- 
tion of  Jt  in  the  apostolic  writings.  Nay,  that  in- 
stead of  such  notice  and  explanation,  a  mode  of  ex- 
pression was  adopted  under  the  '■'■new  economy,"  simi- 
lar to  that  used  before;  calculated  to  convey  the 
idea,  that  parents  and  children  stood  in  their  old  re- 
lation; notwithstanding  the  supposed  painful  change. 

That  parents.  Christian  parents,  saw  their  children 
10* 


104 

rejected,  who  always  had  seen  them  admitted  while 
they  were  Jews;  and  yet  no  murmur  was  heard,  no 
explanation  asked.  Is  this  credible?!!!  This  silence 
"pleads  trumpet  tongued,"  against  the  views  of  our 
Baptist  friends,  and  has  the  weight  of  an  hundred  ar- 
guments/or  infant  baptism. 

The  argument,  therefore,  is  reduced  to  this;  "if 
infant  baptism  is  an  innovation,  it  confessedly  enter- 
ed the  church  very  soon  after  the  canon  of  scripture 
closed;''  and  in  a  few  years  more,  "without  a  single 
precept  to  warrant,  or  a  single  example  to  encourage 
it;  yea  with  the  well  known  practice  of  the  apostles, 
and  of  all  the  churches  they  ever  planted,  directly, 
openly  ^palpably  against  it;  under  all  these  disadvan- 
tages, it  so  universally  prevailed,  that,  upon  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth,  there  was  not  a  church  found, 
were  it  was  not  performed.''  Yea  more;  it  entered  the 
church,  it  prevailed,  it  became  universal.,  without  a 
whisper  o^ opposition,  without  a  word  of  dispute.  All 
parties  in  the  eastern  church,  and  all  parties  in  the 
western  church,  confederating  to  connive  at  the  er- 
ror, to  blot  out  every  trace  of  it  from  the  page  of  history, 
and  never  to  utter  a  single  word,  from  which  it  could  be 
discovered  that  they  had  departed  from  the  gospel  rule;. 
to  that  man  who  believes  this,  what  can  be  incredi- 


105 

hie?!!  such  surely  would  make  good  disciples  of  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiat ion.  For  such,  we  think, 
could  easily  take  another  step;  and  denying  the  evi- 
dence of  their  senses,  swallow  a  wafer  for  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  "I  speak  as  unto  wise 
men,  judge  ye  what  I  say.'' 

A  few  observations  more  in  reply  to  the  question, 
who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism'?  and  we 
shall  close  this  part  of  the  general  argument. 

We  readily  admit  that  believers,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  that  word  are  proper  subjects,  and  that  the 
possession  of  the  highest  religious  experience,  fur- 
nishes no  bar  to  the  reception  of  the  outward  sign. 
In  reading  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it  will  be  seen, 
that  the  ordinance  was  given  both  to  those  that  had, 
and  to  those  that  had  not,  received  the  Holy  Ghost. 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  three  thousand  in- 
quired what  they  must  do,  Peter  said,  "repent  and 
be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.''  By  what  they  saw  and  heard,  especially 
the  gift  of  tongues,  by  which  each  was  enabled  to 
hear  the  wonderful  works  of  God  in  the  language  in 
which  each  was  born,  they  were  convinced  of  the 
Messiahship  of  Christ,  and  saw  their  own  guilt  and 


106 

danger,  and  inquired  of  the  apostles  the  way  of  es- 
cape. We  presume  it  will  not  be  said  that  they  had 
a  Christian  experience,  in  the  usual  sense  of  that 
phrase.     See  Acts  ii. 

In  the  8th  chapter  of  Acts,  we  find  recorded  the 
case  of  the  Samaritans,  who  heard  Philip  "preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  when  they  saw  the 
miracles  which  he  wrought,  they  believed  his  preach- 
ing upon  the  evidence  of  those  miracles,  and  "were 
baptized,  both  men  and  women."  And  it  was  not 
until  "the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  had  heard  that  Sa- 
maria had  received  the  word  of  God"  and  had  sent 
down  Peter  and  John,  who  laid  their  hands  on  them 
and  prayed,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them. 
Now  if  our  Baptist  friends  should  say,  that  what  they 
received  was  not  the  ordinary,  but  the  extraordinary, 
gift  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  the  purpose  of  speak- 
ing with  tongues,  &c.,  they  must  say  it  upon  their 
own  responsibility,  for  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  evi- 
dence of  it  in  the  text.  And  if  they  should  still  per- 
sist in  saying  that  they  were  genuine  converts.,  expe- 
rienced believer s,hQ^OTce  Peter  and  John  came  to  them, 
then  they  admit  that  a  man  may  be  an  experienced 
Christian  without  the  Holv  Ghost;  and  if  one  man 


107 

or  many,  (as  in  this  case,)  then  all  mighty  and  the 
conclusion  would  be,  there  is  no  need  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  constituting  men  real  believers,  genuine 
converts.  For  Luke  says,  (v.  15,  16,)  "who,  when 
they  were  come  down,  prayed  for  them,  that  they 
might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  as  yet  he  was 
fallen  upon  none  of  them;  only  they  were  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Then  laid  they  their 
hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

But  if  our  Baptist  friends  should  still  say  that,  these 
people  had  a  religious  experience  before  they  were 
baptized,  then  they  throw  themselves  into  another 
dilemma;  for  what  is  said  of  their  religion,  is  said 
also  of  Simon's;  in  v.  13,  it  is  said,  '''•Then  Simon 
himself  believed  also;  and  when  he  was  baptized," 
&;c.  Did  Simon  obtain  the  grace  of  evangelical  faith 
before  baptism?  then  he  must  have  fallen  from  grace, 
and  fallen  foully  too,  for  Peter,  said  to  him,  v.  21, 
23, — 'Thou  hast  neither  part,  nor  lot  in  this  matter,' 
^Thou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitterness.^ 

Then  what  becomes  of  the  favorite  doctrine,  'once 
in  grace  always  in  grace.'  But  perhaps  I  shall  be 
told,  Simon  Magus  never  had  any  grace;  then  he  got 
an  experience  without  grace,  or  if  you  like  it  better, 
he  was  baptized  without  grace,  and  if  he  was,  so  were 


108 

the  rest,  for  what  is  said  of  their  faith,  is  said  of  his, 
I  may  be  told  further,  Simon  was  a  reprobate,  and 
never  had  any  thing  more  than  a  common  call  and 
common  grace.  Then  Philip  baptized  a  reprobate. 
And  even  after  he  had  offered  to  buy  the  Holy  Ghost 
with  money,  Peter  exhorted  him  to  repentance  and 
prayer,  that  he  might  be  forgiven.  Query — if  Si- 
mon had  given  heed  to  Peter's  exhortation,  (and  there 
is  some  proof  that  he  did,  v.  24,  for  he  asked  an  in- 
terest in  the  apostle's  prayers,)  and  had  prayed,  re- 
pented, and  become  a  genuine  believer,  would  our 
Baptist  brethren  have  tlioughtit  necessary  tore-bap- 
tize Simon?  If  they  apply  the  same  reasoning 
to  adults  that  they  do  to  children,  in  explaining 
the  commission,  or  what  Mr.  Campbell  calls  'the 
law  of  baptism,'  namely,  that  baptism  must  always 
follow  faith,  and  not  go  before  it,  in  any  case,  as  the 
commission  says, — 'He  that  believetb  and  is  baptiz- 
ed;'— did  Simon's  want  of  evangelic  faith,  vitiate,  or 
render  his  baptism  a  nullity?  if  it  did,  then  he  ought 
to  have  been  re-baptized  upon  his  repentance;  if  it 
did  not,  then  I  cannot  see  how  the  baptism  of  an  in- 
fant is  rendered  a  nullity,  by  its  unbelief,  when  at 
adult  age. 

The  argument  attempted  to  be  drawn  from  the  or- 


109 

der  of  the  words  in  the  commission,  is  entirely  so- 
phistical. As  much  so  as  if  I  were  to  say,  that  be- 
cause "John  the  Baptist,  baptized  in  the  wilderness, 
and  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance,"  therefore 
John  always  baptized  the  people  ^rsf,  and  preached 
the  baptism  of  repentance  to  them  afterwards. 

Having  digressed  thus  far,  I  remark,  this  case  of 
Simon's  is  a  very  perplexing  case,  especially  to  all 
Calvinist  Baptists,  for  when  examined,  it  is  found 
to  endanger  one  of  two  of  their  favorite  opinions. 
From  both  horns  of  the  dilemma  it  is  impossible  to 
escape.  Either  Simon  had  no  grace  and  was  bap- 
tized without  an  experience,  or  he  had  grace  when 
baptized,  and  afterwards  so  utterly  lost  it,  that  he 
had  no  part  or  lot  in  the  matter.  They  can  take,  can- 
did reader,  just  which  side  of  the  question,  just  that 
horn  of  this  dilemma,  that  may  suit  them  best.  It 
is  common  of  two  evils,  for  men  in  self-love,  to  choose 
the  least,  and  as  grace  is  more  valuable  than  water, 
even  ^mnch  icater^  i  suppose  they  will  cling  to  the 
consolation  of  the  Lord's  dear  people,  "where  he  be- 
gins a  work  of  grace,  he  always  carries  it  on  to  the 
end,"  and  will  suppose  that  Philip,  some  how  or  other 
('although  he  was  full  of  wisdom  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost')  made  a  mistake,  and  baptized  an  improper 
candidate  in  that  particular  case. 


110 

The  true  state  of  the  case,  seems  to  have  been  this, 
Philip  entered  Samaria,  commenced  preaching  Christ, 
and  to  confirm  his  doctrine,  began  to  'heal  the  lame,' 
*to  cure  the  palsied,'  and  to  cast  out  unclean  spirits, 
that  cried  with  a  loud  voice  as  they  came  out  of 
those  who  were  possessed  of  them.  Simon,  and  the 
Samaritans,  heard  his  message,  saw  the  miracles; 
were  convinced  that  the  message  was  true;  were 
willing  to  enter  the  school  of  Christ  as  disciples,  by 
baptism,  that  they  might  be  made  better  acquainted 
with  this  new  religion. 

Christianity  was  established  by  miracle,  and  those 
who  gave  it  credence  in  the  early  part  of  its  history, 
rested  their  faith  or  conviction  of  its  truth,  not  so 
much  upon  a  thorough  knowledge  of  its  peculiar 
doctrines,  as  upon  the  evidence  brought  home  to  their 
minds,  through  the  medium  of  their  senses;  and 
those  senses  were  powerfully  addressed  by  the  mira- 
cles of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  So  ignorant  were 
the  apostles  themselves  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  that  up  to  the  period  of  the  Saviour's 
crucifixion,  "they  wondered  what  the  rising  from  the 
dead  should  mean."  Eloquent  Apollos himself,  knew 
so  little  of  the  peculiarities  of  Christianity,  (even 
after  he  had  convinced  the  Jews  that   Jesus  was 


HI 

Christ,)  that  it  was  necessary,  a  plain  mechanic  and 
his  wife,  should  teach  him  the  way  of  the  Lord 
^^more  perfectly."  And  so  ignorant  were  the  twelve 
disciples,  found  by  Paul  at  Ephesus,  that  they  knew 
not  that  there  was  any  Holy  Ghost.  See  Acts,  ch. 
19.  And  those  disciples  received  the  Christian  bap- 
tism from  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  in  addition  to 
the  baptism  of  John,  which  they  had  previously  re- 
ceived; and  when  they  had  received  water  baptism 
in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  Paul  had  laid  his  liands 
on  them,  "the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them.'' 

The  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  as  found  in  the  Acts, 
ch.  22,  is  in  point.  He  was  exhorted  by  Ananias 
to  "arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  his  sins, 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  To  this  penitent 
sinner  he  said,  "Why  tarriest  thou?  arise  and  be  bap- 
tized." It  would  not  look  well,  to  fly  in  the  face  of 
the  text,  and  say  that  his  sins  were  \vashed  away, 
before  he  was  admitted  to  the  ordinance. 

The  Ethiopian  eunuch  is  the  only  person  that  we 

find  in  the  Acts,  professing  to  believe  with  the  heart 

unto  righteousness,  in  order  to  baptism.     And  his 

faith  seems  to  have  had  reference  to  one  point  alone; 

hs  said  to  Philip,  "I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 

Son  of  God."    He  heard  but  one  sermon,  was  in  com- 
11 


112 

pany  with  Philip  perhaps  one  hour,  and  ere  they 
parted,  Phihp  made  a  disciple  of  him  by  baptism. 

It  is  true  that  Cornelius,  and  those  in  his  house, 
Acts,  ch.  10,  did  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  while  Pe- 
ter was  speaking  the  word;  and  received  Christian 
baptism  subsequently;  but  the  reader  will  observe, 
that  this  was  a  peculiar  case;  it  was  the  opening  of 
the  gospel  dispensation  to  the  Gentiles;  when  Peter, 
with  the  keys  which  Christ  gave  him,  was  to  "open 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  Gentiles"  as  he  had 
done  previously^  to  the  Jews.  And  the  same  rea- 
son that  made  it  necessary  to  show  Peter  a  vision  to 
induce  him  to  go  to  Cornelius,  made  it  necessary  to 
send  upon  those  Gentiles  the  Holy  Ghost  prior  to 
baptism;  and  by  examining  the  passage,  you  may 
observe  that  the  six  brethren  who  came  from  Joppa 
with  Peter,  were  astonished  when  they  observed 
that  God  had  given  the  Gentiles  the  Holy  Ghost. 
"Then  said  Peter,  who  can  forbid  waterl^'  &c. 
When  the  news  of  this  visit  reached  Jerusalem,  they 
of  the  circumcision,  contended  with  Peter;  and  he, 
in  making  his  defence,  adduces  this  circumstance  as 
his  vindication:  ^^  While  1  was  speaking  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  on  them,''''  &c.,  "and  what  was  I  that  I 
could  withstand  God?" 


11;^ 

These  doubtless  had  a  religious  experience  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  the  word;  but  it  will  appear  evident, 
we  think,  to  all  who  examine  the  Gospels  and  the 
Acts,  that  the  ordinance  was  never  delayed  for  the 
want  of  an  experience  of  grace.  In  almost  every 
case,  both  Christ  and  his  apostles  gave  the  ordinance 
to  all  without  exception,  and  without  delay ^  who  ap- 
plied to  them,  and  were  willing  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  discipleship.  Hence  we  find  in  John, 
ch.  vi,  60,  66, — "Many,  therefore,  of  his  disciples 
when  they  had  heard  this,  said,  this  is  an  hard  say- 
ing, who  can  bear  it?  &c.  and  Jesus  said,  doth  this  of- 
fend you?  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe 
not.  For  Jesus  knew  from  the  begimiing  who  they 
were  that  believed  not,  and  who  should  betray 
him." 

Nowi,  "here  are  many  disciples,  who,  of  course, 
were  baptized  persons,  that  did  not  believe.  And 
we  are  told  that  ^^ Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning''^ 
that  they  believed  not.  They  therefore  never  had 
believed;  and  consequently  were  not  believers  at  the 
time  of  their  baptism.  And  they  never  had  faith 
afterwards;  for  we  read,  '^theywent  back  and  walked 
no  more  with  him.''^ 

In  further  proof,  it  may  be  observed,  that  of  all 


114 

(he thousands  that  Christ  baptized  before  his  death 
from  "Jerusalem  and  ^le  region  round  about,"  of 
them,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  were  to  be 
found  hilt  one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples,  until 
Ihe  conversion  of  the  three  thousand.  Where  were 
they?  Had  so  many  thousand  true  behevers,  with 
one  consent,  made  shipwreek  of  faith?  No,  reader; 
they  had  been  struck  with  the  splendor  of  his  mira- 
cles, they  offered  themselves  as  disciples,  were  en- 
tered into  his  school  by  baptism; — but  disliking  af- 
terwards his  spiritual  teachings,  and  the  simplicity 
of  his  religion,  they  *'M)ewi  &ac^.''  It  is  much  ea- 
sier to  enter  the  church  of  Christ  as  disciples,  by 
baptism,  than  to  perform  those  solemn,  spiritual  and 
important  duties  to  which  we  are  introduced  by 
taking  this  badge  of  discipleship. 

From  what  we  have  written  above,  it  will  be  ga- 
thered, that,  we  consider  all  as  fit  subjects  for  bap- 
tism, who  credit  the  gospel  message,  are  willing  to 
receive  Christ  as  their  Saviour,  and  assume  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  Christianity.  I  was  informed  lately 
by  a  minister  of  the  old  Baptist  church,  that  a  cer- 
tain Dr.  T ,  who  I  am  told  is  one  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's preachers,  has  been  engaged  lately  re-haptiz- 
ing  the   members  of  the  old  Baptist  church,  who, 


115 

years  ago,  received  what  is  called  ^^helievers'  bap- 
tism.''^ They  received  believers'  baptism  before. 
What  are  they  receiving  now?  I  suppose  the  Dn 
is  baptizing  them  "for  the  remission  of  sins.'* 
Query — is  not  this  reversing  the  order  of  Christian 
experience?  or  tacitly  confessing  that  they  were  de- 
ceived before,  and  only  had  a  false  hope?  I  pre- 
sume they  repented,  believed,  and  were  baptized 
upon  an  experience  of  grace.  And  now  do  they  go 
back?  If  they  were  baptized  before,  according  to 
Mr.  Cs  '■''law  of  baptism,''''  pray  what  law  are  they 
now  baptized  under?  Has  Dr.  T ,  in  "expound- 
ing the  ancient  gospel"  to  them,  added  a  supplement 
to  the  law?  This  reminds  me  of  the  case  of  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Baptist  church,  not  one  hundred  miles 
from  this,  who  has  received  baptism  three  different 
times.  Do  men  who  read  their  bibles  imagine,  that 
they  find  a  "thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for  giving  Chris- 
tian baptism  to  any  man  more  than  once?  It  is  tri- 
fling with  God's  ordinance,  and  has  as  little  authori- 
ty from  God's  word,  as  from  common  sense.  In  the 
close,' suflfer  me  to  repeat  the  language  of  Dr.  A. 
Clarke: — "The  repetition  of  Christian  baptism  I  be- 
lieve to  be  profane.'''' 

Let  us  all  who  have  been  solemnly  dedicated  in 
11* 


116 

baptism  to  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
recollect  that  "we  are  debtors  to  keep  the  whole 
law."  And  may  God,  whose  we  are,  "send  us  help 
from  his  sanctuary,  and  strengthen  us  out  of  Zion," 
that  we  may  walk  worthy  of  our  high,  holy,  and 
heavenly  calling. 

Mode  of  Baptism. 

On  this  part  of  the  subject  I  think  Mr.  Broaddus's 
motto  or  text  a  very  unfortunate  one,  as  he  cannot 
show  any  analogy  between  the  detailed  directions 
given  to  Moses  for  building  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
casual  or  accidental  manner  in  which  baptism  is 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  For  if  God  had 
given  as  specific  directions  for  baptizing  as  he  did 
anciently  for  making  the  tabernacle,  it  would  not 
have  been  necessary  for  Mr.  B.  to  labor  through 
forty-two  pages  to  show  the  pattern  given  for  bap- 
tism. He  says,  (Ser.  p.  6,)  that  he  selected  that 
motto  ^^as  suggesting  the  vecessitj;  of  a  rigid  ad- 
herence  to  the  exprkssed  will  of  God,  especially  in 
relation  to  institutions,'^^  ^^c.;  and  then  proceeds  to 
assert  a  fanciful  distinction  between  what  he  calls 
^^moral  and  positive  requirements,''  and  says  "the 
manner  of  performing  a  moral  obligation  may  be 


in 

perfectly  indifferent;  but  declares  it  is  not  so  with 
^^positive  institutions."  Unfortunately  for  Mr.  B. 
he  has  not  even  attempted  to  furnish  a  single  proof 
from  God's  word  in  support  of  this  view  oi^ positive 
institutes  and  moral  duties.  To  be  sure  he  quotes 
bishop  Hoadley  in  proof.  But  I  cannot  perceive  that 
the  bishop's  words  sustain  Mr.  B's  position.  Mr. 
B.  says  ^positive  institutions;^  the  bishop  says  "posi- 
tive duties.^^  Now  positive  duties  may  be  institu- 
tions, or  they  may  not.  If  Mr.  B.  had  been  so  good 
as  to  tell  where  this  saying  of  the  bishop's  is  to  be 
found,  we  should  have  been  better  able  to  tell  wheth- 
er the  words  will  bear  that  kind  of  application.  So 
far  as  we  can  perceive,  the  evidence  is  not  to  the 
point,  but  to  be  proved.  Mr.  B.  says  on  the  same 
page,  "we  may  expect  to  find  the  word  of  God  very 
explicit  on  the  subject  of  positive  institutions,"  and 
yet  his  distinction  is  unsupported  by  a  single  text  of 
Scripture.  I  enter  my  dissent  from  his  starting  po- 
sition, relative  to  positive  institutions,  because  it 
stands  opposed  to  facts.  1 .  Circumcision  was  a  posi- 
tive institute, — and  can  any  man  show  any  detailed 
explicit  direction  about  the  manner  of  performing  the 
rite?  2.  The  sacrament  of  the  Lord^s  supper  is  a 
positive  institute. — Do  the  scriptures  give  specific 


118 

directions  about  the  manner  of  attending  to  that? .  It 
was  first  celebrated  in  the  night,  in  a  reclining  pos- 
ture, with  unleavened  bread,  in  an  upper  room,  &c. 
&c.,  and  yet  what  intelligent  Christian  supposes  that 
these  things  are  any  more  than  mere  circumstances , 
or  that  they  are  necessary  to  the  acceptable  celebra- 
tion of  that  supper.  Do  our  Baptist  brethren  cele- 
brate it  at  night?  or  with  unleavened  bread?  And 
would  not  Mr.  B.  himself  as  soon  receive  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  supper  on  the  Lord's  day,  in  the 
house  of  God,  as  on  Thursday  night,  in  an  upper 
room  of  a  private  house?  I  know  there  are  super- 
stitious people  who  regard  a  mere  circumstance  in  a 
sacrament,  as  a  matter  of  great  moment.  And  so 
there  were  those  of  old  who  thought  more  of  ^^tith- 
ing  iimif^  than  they  did  of  the  "Zoi'e  of  Gociy 

Let  our  Baptist  friends  apply  their  own  practice 
with  regard  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
to  the  principle  which  Mr.  B.  lays  down  with  regard 
to  ^'positive  institutions,''''  and  they  will  see  a  great 
want  of  agreement  between  his  principles  and  their 
practice.  And  say,  candid  reader,  is  the  institution 
of  baptism  more  important  than  that  which  repre- 
sents "his  broken  body,"  and  "Azs  shed  Mood''' — and 
shows  forth  the  Lord's  death  till  his  coming  again? 


119 

Why,  then,  this  insisting  on  a  "pattern"  for  baptism, 
when  no  man  can  show  in  God's  word  a  ^^pattern'^^ 
for  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper?  Bread  and 
wine,  are  spoken  of  for  the  one,  and  water  as  the  ele- 
ment for  the  observance  of  the  other.  And  although 
Mr.  B.  says,  page  27,  "The  word  of  God  knows 
nothing  for  baptism  but  immersion?  I  as  unhesitating- 
ly declare,  that  the  word  of  God  speaks  of  baptism, 
where  immersion  was  utterly  out  of  the  question. 
Now,  candid  reader,  I  have  just  placed  my  assertion 
along  side  of  J/r.  jB's,  hoping  that  you  will  receive 
neither  the  one  or  the  other  in  this  matter  without 
proof.  The  proof  I  hope  to  be  able  to  give  you  in 
the  following  pages: 

Mr.  B.  commences  on  the  mode,  by  finding  fault 
with  the  translators — for  leaving  the  Greek  terms 
untranslated;  giving  them  an  English  termination, 
instead  of  translating  them  Immerse,  Immersed,  Im- 
mersion^ &;c.  And  both  in  the  Strictures  and  Ser- 
mon, king  James,  the  bishops,  and  translators,  are 
treated  without  ceremony. 

The  impartial  reader  will  judge,  whether  it  is 
likely  that  the  king,  the  bishops,  and  forty-seven 
translators  would  form  a  conspiracy  against  the 
truth;  and  give  to  the  world  a  translation  that  did 


120 

not  express  fully  what  they  believed  to  be  the  sense 
of  the  original  term  baptizo.  I  would  ask  Mr.  B., 
who  prevented  the  Latin  and  French  translators 
from  translating  the  oriojinaL  so  far  as  to  favor  im- 
mersion  only?  And  why  he  did  not  furnish  evidence 
that  Dr.  George  Campbell  in  his  translation  of  the 
gospels — or  the  great  Dutch  Reformer,  Martin 
Luther,  in  his  translation  of  the  bible,  has  translated 
the  original  differently  from  king  James's  transla- 
tors?—  for  he  says,  Ser.  p.  29,  that  both  Dr.  Camp- 
bell and  Luther  held  the  original  term,  as  meaning 
immersion  or  dipping  only.  To  be  sure,  Mr.  B. 
says,  that  Luther  calls  John  the  Baptist,  "John  the 
Dipper,"  and  gives  what  he  considers  the  German 
of  Luther's  Testament — "Johannes  der  Taufer" — 
which  Mr.  B.  (the  translator)  renders  "John  the 
Dipper."  Reader,  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  able  to 
translate  German,  but  I  strongly  suspect,  that  this 
gentleman  has  hit  as  wide  of  the  truth  here,  as  in 
making  baptizo  mean  immersion  only.  A  friend  of 
mine,  who  understands  and  speaks  the  German,  in- 
forms me,  that  the  English  of  ''Johannes  der  Taufer"^ 
is  John  the  Baptist;  and  that  the  German  for  Dip- 
per or  Immerser  is  not  "Ttt?{/er,"  but  "Tuncker;'' 
hence   the  name  of  that  sect  of  Christians  called 


121 

^^TunckerSj''^  or  vulgarly  '■'•Dimlavrdsj''  who  baptize 
candidates  by  dipping  them  three  times. 

The  translators,  in  retaining  the  original  word, 
in  the  translation,  only  followed  what  had  been  the 
general  practice;  for  even  as  far  back  as  the  second 
century,  the  author  of  the  Peshito,  an  old  Syriac 
version  of  the  New  Testament,  the  oldest  version  ex- 
tant, although  the  Syriac  has  a  word  which  signifies 
to  plunge,  dip,  immerse,  has  never  used  that  word  in 
the  translation  to  denote  baptism,  Prof.  Stewart,  p. 
78;  again — that  the  precise  idea  of  immersion,  can- 
not apply  to  baptizing,  or  that  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  words  baptize  and  baptism,  would  be  pro- 
perly rendered  by  the  words  immerse,  immersion, 
we  may  safely  conclude  from  the  following  conside- 
ration; the  earliest  Latin  translators  did  not  find  the 
Greek  words  properly  represented  by  mergo,  immer- 
go,  immersio;  although  these  words  properly  signi- 
fied to  immerse,  immersion,  and  were  commonly  so 
used  in  the  Latin  language.  They  saw  there  was  a 
meaning  to  the  Greek  word,  which  their  word  de- 
noting immersion  did  not  fairly  represent.  And  this 
was  at  a  time,  too,  when  there  were  no  controversies 
on  the  subject;  and  at  a  time,  too,  if  we  believe  the 
Baptists,  when  every  person  baptized  was  immersed. 


122 

Yet  the  Latin  translators,  if  the  Baptist  system  be 
correct,  must  first  have  left  a  word  untranslated,  for 
which  they  had  terms  in  every  respect  correspond- 
ing, and  appropriate.  And  secondly,  they  must  have 
done  this  with  the  rite  of  baptism  continually  before 
their  eyes,  performed  by  immersion,  on  account  of 
which  they  would  be  the  more  inexcusable.  But 
these  things  are  not  so.  They  found  the  words  em- 
ployed in  ^  ceremonial  sense;  they  therefore  retained 
the  07'iginal  icords  themselves,  leaving  to  the  insti- 
tution itself  to  make  known  its  mode.  They  there- 
fore Latinize  the  Greek  words,  and  give  us  baptize, 
baptisma,  and  baptismus.  However,  for  doing  so, 
they  had  high  authority;  the  authority  or  example 
of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  that,  too,  in  a  similar  case. 
The  Hebrew  word,  pesach,  is  retained  by  the  in- 
spired writers  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  Greek 
word  pascha.  The  Latins  latinize  the  same  word. 
Prof.  Elliot,  pages  81,  62.  These  cases  are  parallel, 
one  referring  to  the  institute  of  the  Passover,  and 
the  other  to  the  institute  of  Baptism. 

But  Mr.  B.  tells  us,  that  Dr.  Carson,  a  Baptist 
writer,  says  that  '-'■Baptizo,  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  Greek  language,  has  but  one  meaning.  It  not 
only  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse,  but  it  never  has  any 


123 

€ther  meaning.''''  Ser.  page  28.  MarTc  that,  candid 
reader,  as  I  shall,  in  the  course  of  the  argument, 
place  John  the  Baptist,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul, 
<ill  against  this  Dr.  Carson!!  At  present,  however, 
I  shall  only  place  one  Doctor  against  another.  Dr. 
Adam  Clarke,  Comm'y.  Matt,  iii,  6,  asks,  "Were 
the  people  dipped,  or  sprinkled?''''  for  it  is  certain 
bapto  and  baptizo  mean  both."  'When  Greek 
meets  Greek,  then  is  the  tug  of  war.'  As  these 
Doctors  disagree,  I  shall  call  in  other  witnesses  pres- 
ently. Perhaps,  reader,  you  are  ready  to  ask  me, 
if  this  is  the  same  Dr.  Clarke  quoted  by  Mr.  B. 
(Stric.  page  15,)  in  support  of  immersion,  as  the  ex- 
clusive mode?  Yes,  identically  the  same.,  Mr.  B. 
I  perceive,  has  left  the  Doctor  out  of  his  cloud  of 
witnesses,  in  his  Sermon.  I  suppose  he  began  to 
suspect  he  had  not  treated  the  Doctor  very  fairly  in 
the  first  publication.  But  it  may  be. that  he  may 
wish  to  suggest,  that  Dr.  Clarke  was  a  sprinkler^ 
like  the  king,  bishops,  and  translators,  and  that  his 
account  of  the  matter  was  influenced  by  his  creeds 
or  practice  of  baptizing.  Very  good;  and  Dr.  Car- 
son was  a  dipper, — his  criticism  no  doubt  was  in- 
fluenced by  his  practice  in  baptizing; — so  in  this,  at 

least,  they  are  about  equal.     Which  of  the  Doctors 
12 


124 

was  the  greater  scholar,  and  consequently  best  pre- 
pared to  judge,  I  shall  not  attempt  to  decide;  I  leave 
that  to  the  reader. 

Dr.  Carson,  however,  has  raade  a  concession  on 
this  subject,  which  will  go  a  great  way  in  destroying 
the  weight  of  his  testimony.  While  he  contends  that 
baptizo  always  signifies  to  immerse,  he  acknowledges 
that  ^'all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators  are 
against  him  in  that  opinion.''^  Carson  Bap.  page  79 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  Miller.  How  far  the  confidence 
which,  in  the  face  of  this  acknowledgment  he  ex 
presses  that  they  are  all  icrong,  and  that  his  inter 
pretation  alone  is  right,  is  either  modest  or  well 
founded,  must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  impar 
tial  reader. 

Mr.  B.  says  that  "Professor  Stuart,  as  a  Biblical 
critic,  is  perhaps  not  excelled  by  an)^  man  in  the 
United  States;" — and  this  critic  says  of  Dr.  Carson, 
"He  lays  down  some  very  adventurous  positions,  in 
respect  to  one  meaning,  and  one  only,  of  words; 
which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  every  lexicon  on  earth  con- 
tradictSj  and  always  must  contradict."  Stuart  on  the 
Mode  of  Baptism,  page  100.  So  much  for  Rev.  A. 
Carson  and  his  translation  of  baptizo. 

One  more  remark  relative  to  the  translators  of  the 


125 

common  version. — It  is  not  only  unchristian,  to  tram- 
ple upon  the  ashes  of  dead  men,  by  impugning  their 
motives  and  misrepresenting  their  conduct, — but  it  is 
ungenerous  to  charge  them  and  the  bishops  with 
making  a  translation  to  favor  sp?'inkling,  when  half 
the  evidence,  at  least,  which  the  Baptists  adduce  to 
favor  immersion,  is  drawn  from  the  manner  in  which 
these  same  translators  have  rendered  the  Greek 
prepositions, — in  Jordan — out  of  the  water,  dz;c. 
When,  if  they  had  indulged  any  design  to  deceive, 
they  might  have  given  them  fairly,  a  different  render- 
ing. Here,  as  the  Baptists  will  tell  you,  we  have  a 
translation,  partly  supporting  sprinkling,  and  partly 
against  it.  Surely,  candid  reader,  these  same  47 
translators,  who  produced  the  common  version  in 
1613,  were  either  very  stupid,  or  very  honest.  I 
think  the  latter.     'Judge  ye  what  I  say.' 

I  shall  next  take  some  notice  of  Mr.  B's  list  of  Pe- 
dobaptist  witnesses.  Ser.  p.  30,  31,  and  Stric.  p. 
14, 15,  16.  Some  of  these  witnesses  I  shall  be  oblig- 
ed to  pass  by,  as  I  have  not  their  works  at  hand  to 
refer  to.  The  reader  may  be  able  to  judge  of  the 
fairness,  or  rather  unfairness,  with  which  Mr.  Booth 
and  Mr.  Broaddus  has  treated  them  all)  from  a  spe-i 
cimen  or  two  which  we  expect  to  give. 


126 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind,  that  Mr.  B's  prop- 
osition, which  he  wishes  to  sustain,  is,  that  'immers- 
ion, or  dipping,  is  the  only  proper  mode,'  or  that 
'baptizo  means  to  dip  ow/t/.' — Stric.  p.  15.  And  he 
brings  these  Pedobaptist  witnesses  into  court  to 
prove  this.  We  shall  see,  whether  he  allows  them, 
in  his  hands,  to  tell  the  whole  truth  in  the  case.  I 
hope  he  will  not  do,  as  some  people  do,  in  quoting 
the  words  of  Christ,  as  a  witness  for  unconditioned 
perseverance,  viz.  ^  Of  all  whom  thou  hast  given  me, 
Ihave  lost  none;' — so  far,  the  witness  seems  to  sup- 
port the  position;  but  suffer  him  to  speak  on, — 'but 
the  son  of  perdition.^  Ah,  this  puts  quite  another 
face  upon  the  text;  as  I  hope  to  do,  upon  the  testimo- 
my  of  at  least,  some  oi^  these  witnesses.  Attend  to 
me  patiently,  gentle  reader,  I  am  in  part,  pleading 
the  cause  of  dead  men,  represented  as  having  lived 
and  died  '■inconsistent,'^  and  who  are  not  here  to  speak 
for  themselves,  but  whose  record  is  on  high.  I  shall 
begin  with  Dr.  A.  Clarke.  Mr.  B.  in  his  Strictures, 
page  15,  after  quoting  part  of  a.  sentence  from  Dr. 
Clarke's  Commentar}'-  on  Romans  vi,  4,  says,  'I  do 
think  I  have  proved  beyond  all  question,  that  baptizo 
means  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else.'  'It  has  but 
one  meaning; — these  learned  men  knew  it,  and  their 


127 

candor  forced  them  to  acknowledge  it.'  Reader, 
does  Dr.  Clarke  acknowledge  it?  hear  him  fully  on 
Romans  vi,  4,  "It  is  probable  that  the  apostle  here 
alludes  to  the  mode  of  administering  baptism  by  ifn- 
mersion;  1  say  it  is  probable — but  not  absolutely 
certain  that  he  does  so,  as  some  imagine;  for  in  the 
next  verse,  our  being  incorporated  into  Christ  by  ho.p' 
tism,  is  also  denoted  by  our  being  planted  or  graft- 
ed together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death:  and  Noah's 
ark  floating  upon  the  water,  and  sprhikled  by  the 
rain  from  heaven,  is  a  flgure  corresponding  to  bap- 
tism, 1  Peter  iii,  20,  21;  but  neither  of  these  gives  us 
the  same  idea  of  the  outward  form  as  burying.  We 
must  be  careful,  therefore,  not  to  lay  too  much  stress 
on  such  a  circumstance."  Does  this  prove  Mr.  B's 
position?  I  think  not.  He  has  taken  great  liber- 
ties with  this  witness, — first  he  mutilates  the  sen- 
tence,— then  gives  it  as  a  whole, — putting  a  period 
in  the  place  of  Dr.  C's  comma, — and  then  puts  the 
words  baptize  and  immersion,  in  italics;  and  the 
word  probable,  which  the  Dr.  purposely  italicised 
twice  in  the  note,  Mr.  B.  does  not  emphasise  at 
all.  It  is  bad  enough  to  take  such  liberties  with 
living  men. 

Mr.  Wesley  is  the  next  witness  we  shall  call.  Mr. 
12* 


128 

B.  has  treated  him  with  as  little  candor  as  he  has 
the  Dr.  In  his  Strictures,  p.  15,  he  attempts  to 
quote  Mr.  W.  on  Rom.  vi,  4,  and  mutilates  the  sen- 
tence; puts  a  period  were  Mr.  W.  has  none,  and  pre- 
fixes to  the  note  these  words — '/if  seems  the  part  ofcari' 
dor  to  confess,''  when  Mr.  W.  has  no  such  words  in 
his  note.  It  is  a  pity  that  Mr.  B.  should  have  lost 
sight  of  his  own  candor  in  attempting  to  find  that 
quality  in  Mr.  W's  notes. 

Mr.  Wesley's  commentary,  on  a  parallel  passage 
in  Col.  ii,  12,  is  often  quoted  by  Baptist  preachers, 
to  prove  that  he  favored  immersion  only.  I  have 
heard  them  do  this  myself.  Although  that  note  is 
not  in  Mr.  B^s  printed  sermon,  I  will  give  it  to  the 
reader  to  disabuse  his  mind  of  any  erroneous  impres- 
sion on  that  subject.  This  note  when  made  to  speak 
in  favor  of  immersion,  is  quoted  thus — 'The  ancient 
manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  is  manifestly  al- 
luded to  here.'  This  is  only  part  of  the  sentence 
used  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  one  ivord  left  out  of  that. 
The  note,  when  fairly  quoted,  proves  nothing  for  the 
Baptists.  Mr.  W's  words  are  as  follows;  "The  an- 
cient manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  is  as  mani- 
festly alluded  to  here  as  the  other  manner  of  bap- 
tizing by  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  water   is;  Heb. 


129 

X,  22.  But  no  stress  is  laid  upon  the  age  of  the 
baptized,  or  the  manner  of  performing  it,  in  one  or 
the  other  place,''  &;c.  Candid  reader,  does  either  of 
these  passages  contain  the  evidence  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley acknowledges  immersion  as  the  only  mode?  'I 
speak  as  unto  wise  men.' 

Mr.  B.,  Ser.  p.  30,  quotes  two  cases  from  Mr. 
Wesley's  Journal  to  prove  that  he  ^preferred  ini' 
mersion,^  neither  of  which  proves  any  such  thing. 
The  first  is  the  case  of  a  child  which  he  baptized  at 
eleven  days  old,  according  to  the  'rule  of  the  church 
of  England,'  by  immersion;  and  as  Mr.  W.  happened 
to  mention  that  the  child  began  to  recover  from  the 
time  of  its  baptism,  Mr.  B.  infers  that  by  mentioning 
that  circumstance  Mr.  Wesley  intended  to  recom.' 
mend  immersion.  I  infer  on  the  contrary,  that  he 
meant  to  recommend  infant  baptism. 

The  other  case  is  the  case  of  Mr.  Parker's  child, 
in  Georgia,  which  Mr.  W.  refused  to  baptize  because 
its  mother  refused  to  let  it  be  dipped,  assigning,  as 
his  reason  that  the  Rubric  of  his  church  required  it  to 
be  dipped^  unless  it  were  weak  or  unwell. — Wesley's 
Journal,  Feb.  and  May,  1736.  This  was  three  years 
before  Mr.  Wesley  formed  any  Society;  while  he  was 
a  wery  young  man,  and  was  a  priest  in   the  church 


130 

of  England.  He  of  course,  as  a  conscientious  man, 
felt  himself  bound  to  regard  the  Rubric  of  his  church. 
He  gives  this  as  his  reason,  and  utters  no  objection 
to  the  child  being  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
by  another  person.  According  to  Mr.  B's  own  show 
ing,  the  grand  jury  thought  Mr.  W.  justifiable  in 
view  of  the  Rubric. 

Mr.  W.  could  not  be  supposed  to  have  understood 
the  subject  of  baptism  then  as  perfectly  as  he  did 
when  he  wrote  his  Treatise  on  that  subject  more 
than  tiventy  years  afterwards.  In  that  Treatise  he 
says — "And  as  there  is  no  clear  proof  of  dipping,  in 
Scripture,  so  there  is  very  probable  proof  of  the 
contrary.  It  is  true,  we  read  of  being  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism.  But  nothing  can  be  inferred  from 
such  a  figurative  expression.  Nay,  if  it  held  ex- 
actly, it  would  make  as  much  for  sprinkling  as  for 
plunging;  since  in  burying,  the  body  is  not  plunged 
through  the  substance  of  the  earth,  but  rather  earth 
is  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  it."  Works,  vol.  6,  p. 
13.  And  finally  this  witness  says — "The  greatest 
scholars^  and  most  proper  judges  in  the  matter,  testi- 
fy that  the  original  term  translated  baptize,  means 
not  dipping,  but  washing  or  cleansing"  Does  this 
prove  Mr.  B's  assertion  true  or  false?     He  says  Mr. 


131 

Wesley  ^preferred  immersion^  and  he  would  have  re- 
stored immersion  if  he  could.'  I  think  the  reader  will 
see  a  very  great  want  of  fairness  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  gentleman  has  treated  Mr.  Wesley.  As 
I  am  now  on  the  testimony  of  Mr.  W.,  it  may  not 
be  amiss  to  remark,  that  the  attempt  which  Mr.  B. 
makes,  in  his  Sermon,  to  prove  that  Mr.  W.  held 
baptismal  regeneration,  and  held  even  worse  views 
than  Mr.  A.  Campbell,  I  think  unworthy  a  serious  ■ 
notice. 

His  attempt  to  throw  contempt  on  the  Episcopal- 
ians, Presbyterians,  Methodists  and  others,  by  at- 
tributing to  them  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regener- 
ation,  is  one  of  those  stratagems  used  to  mislead  the 
mind  of  the  reader;  a  part  of  that  finesse,  which  is 
used  for  the  purpose  of  prosely  tism — a  tub  to  decoy 
the  whale,  until  he  can  be  brought  within  the  reach  of 
the  ecclesiastical  harpoon — an  attempt  to  prove  that 
he  is  right  by  proving  that  others  are  wrong. 

The  next  witness  I  shall  call  upon  in  the  list  of 
Mr.  B's  witnesses,  is  Professor  Stuart.  He  produces 
the  testiiiiony  of  the  Professor  to  prove  immersion  as 
the  exclusive  mode.  Ser.  p.  32.  He  quotes  him 
thus:  "Both  of  these  words  {baptoanA  baptizo)  mean 
*-o  dip,  plunge  or  immerge  into  any  thing  liquid." 


132 

The  Professor  says,  (Stuart  on  the  Mode  of  Bap- 
tism, p.  29  and  81:) — "There  is  then  no  absolute 
certainty  from  usage,  that  the  word  (baptizo)  when 
applied  to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism,  means,  of 
course,  to  immerge  or  plunge.  It  may  mean  wash- 
ing; possibly  (but  not  probably)  it  may  mean  copi- 
ously moistening  or  bedewing;  because  words  coming 
from  the  common  root  (bap)  are  applied  in  both  these 
senses  as  we  have  seen  above.  "iVo  injunction  is 
any  where  given  in  the  New  Testament,  respecting 
the  manner  in  which  this  rite  shall  be  performed.  If 
there  be  such  a  passage,  let  it  be  produced.  This 
cannot  be  done.  But  it  will  doubtless  be  said,  that 
'the  manner  of  the  rite  is  involved  in  the  word  itself, 
which  is  used  to  designate  it,  and  that  therefore  this 
is  as  much  a  matter  of  command  as  the  rite  itself.' 
To  this  I  answer  that  it  would  prove  a  great  deal  too 
much."  Again  Professor  Stuart  says,  p.  98 — "If 
you  say.  The  classical  use  of  the  word  abundantly 
justifies  the  construction  1  put  upon  it,  my  reply  is, 
that  classical  usage  can  never  be  very  certain  in  re- 
spect to  a  word  in  the  New  Testament.  Who  does 
not  know  that  a  multitude  of  Greek  words  here  re- 
ceive their  coloring  and  particular  meanings  from 
the  Hebrew,  and  not  from  the  Greek  classics?"  The 


133 

sentiment  of  the  Professor  is  confirmed  by  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostle  Paul,  who  well  understood  both 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek;  for  in  Heb.  vi,  2,  he 
speaks  of  the  'doctrine  of  baptism;''  and  in  ix,  10,  of 
'divers  baptisms;^  in  both  of  which  places,  he  doubt- 
less applies  the  word  to  those  ceremonial  washings 
or  purifications  used  among  the  Jews,  which,  he 
says  in  v.  13,  'were  performed  by  sprinkling  the 
unclean.'  And  we  remark  here,  without  fear  of  suc- 
cessful contradiction,  that  wherever  an  administra- 
tor and  a  subject  is  found  under  the  Jewish  regula- 
tions, or  Old  Testament  arrangements,  the  one  ad- 
ministering, and  the  other  receiving,  any  of  those 
'divers  baptisms,'  the  mode  was  never  by  immersion. 
It  is  true,  the  Jews  washed  or  bathed  themselves  and 
their  clothes;  but  these  washings  they  performed 
naked,  and  in  private,  and  never  received  them  from 
the  hands  of  an  administrator.  If  the  reader  will 
refer  to  Num.  xix,  17,  21,  he  will  seethe  ceremony 
detailed  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  Heb,  ix,  13, 
and  calls  it  a  baptism;  and  he  will  see  that  the  hys- 
sop was  dipped  in  running  water  and  the  person  was 
sprinkled: — it  is  worthy  of  remark  also,  that  among 
the  ancient  heathens,  purification  was  often  performed 
by  sprinkling  water  upon  the  unclean,  with  a  branch 


134 

ofolive,  or  other  tree.  See  the  account  in  Potter's 
Greek  Antiquities,  p.  200;  and  an  instance  also  in 
Virgil's  ^neid  vi,  229. 

The  reader  will  judge  from  the  testimony  we  have 
adduced  from  Prof  Stuart,  whether  Mr.  B.  has 
quoted  him  fairly. 

That  the  witness  finds  immersion  practiced  in  ^ari' 
cient  times''  not  by  'the  first  church,''  as  Mr.  B.  has  it, 
Ser.  p.  32,  is  true,  but  he  finds  equal  evidence,  he  says, 
for  baptizing  men  and  women  naked,  and  that  by 
dipping  them  three  times,  &c.  He  says,  'revolting 
as  this  custom  was,  yet  it  is  as  certain  as  testimony 
can  make  it;'  p.  75. 

Now,  candid  reader,  I  leave  you  to  judge,  how 
much  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  mutilated  tes- 
timonies from  Pedobaptist  writers,  adduced  by  Mr. 
B.  You  can  judge  of  the  balance,  from  those  I  have 
examined.  I  will  close  this  part  of  the  subject  with 
a  quotation  from  that  clear  and  conclusive  writer, 
Peter  Edwards,  who  was  himself,  for  a  number  of 
years,  a  Baptist  preacher,  and  who  discovered  the 
weakness  of  the  arguments  ofthe  Baptists,  while  read- 
ing Mr.  Booth's  book  in  favor  of  their  views.  He 
says,  (speaking  of  Mr.  Booth's  eighty  witnesses,  to 
which  Mr.  Broaddus  refers,)   'He  quotes  a  numbej 


135 

of  authors,  who,  as  he  says,  understood  the  term 
'baptize'  to  mean  immersion,  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling; and  these  quotations  he  calls  concessions. 
Concessions  of  what?  That  the  word  meant  immers- 
ion only?  If  so,  he  made  them  concede  what  they 
never  did  concede,  and  what  they  had  no  thought  of 
conceding.  It  is  a  shame  to  abuse  the  living  or  the 
dead,  and  it  is  a  bad  cause  that  requires  it;  I  doubt 
whether  one  of  the  eighty  abused  critics,  was  on  his 
side.'— Edwards,  p.  159,  160. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  the  history  of  the 
ordinance,  as  we  find  it  in  the  New  Testament;  and 
see,  whether  the  facts  therein  detailed  favor  our 
views,  or  the  views  of  the  Baptists.  We  shall  first 
remark  upon  an  allusion  of  the  apostle  Paul  to  a  case 
of  baptism  of  men,  women,  and  children,  which  oc- 
curred in  an  early  period  of  the  history  of  the  church; 
even  before  what  Mr.  Booth  calls,  the  '■Ecclesiastico- 
Political  Constitution,  had  any  existence.  The 
case  is  recorded  in  Ex.  xiv,  19,  22,  and  is  referred 
to  by  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  x,  2 — "And  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;"  and 
yet  Moses  says — "They  went  into  the  midst  of  the 
sea  upon  dry  ground.^^     Here  I  put  the  apostle  Paul 

against  Mr.  Broaddusand  Dr.  Carson,  as  I  promised 
13 


13a 

to  do.  They  say  "the  scriptures  know  nothing  for 
baptism  but  immersion."  The  apostle  being  judge, 
here  were  six  hundred  thousand  men,  besides  women 
and  children,  all  baptized  while  they  were  on  '■dry 
ground'  and  all  ''dry  shod,'' 

The  reader  must  judge  between  these  gentlemen 
and  the  apostle.  But  I  shall  be  told  that  they  were 
baptized  'in  a  figure,'  as  they  were  surrounded.  It  is 
dangerous  to  be  making  figures  to  destroy  the  plain, 
obvious  meaning  of  scripture.  And  moreover,  they 
appear  not  to  have  been  surrounded,  for  there  was 
dry  land  behind  them  to  the  shore,  and  dry  land  be- 
fore them  to  the  opposite  shore;  and  the  cloud  as  a 
pillar  of  fire  between  them  and  the  Egyptians;  so 
they  only  had  water  on  their  right  and  left,  as  two 
walls.  However  many  'figures'  there  are  in  the 
passage,  there  is  no  figure  of  immersion  or  dipping 
in  the  case.  The  Holy  Spirit  has  seen  fit  to  give  us 
the  mode  in  which  these  people  'were  baptized  unto 
Moses.'  In  Psalms  Ixxvii,  16, 17,  where  the  Psalm- 
ist refers  to  God's  having  'led  his  people  by  the 
hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron,'  he  has  these  remarkable 
words, — "The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the  waters 
saw  thee;  they  were  afraid;  the  depths  also  were 
troubled.     The   clouds  poured  out  water."      That 


137 

the  passage  of  Israel  through  the  Red  Sea  is  refer- 
red to  here,  no  man  of  candor  will  doubt,  who  reads 
the  passage  with  attention.  In  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, how  were  they  baptized  in  the  sea?  we  remark, 
— as  the  action  of  a  natural  agent,  the  wind  was  em- 
ployed to  make  a  passage  for  them,  the  extreme  agi- 
tation of  the  waters  by  it,  would  occasion  a  mist  or 
spray,  by  this,  as  they  passed  along,  they  would  be 
sprinkled;  and  this  I  presume  is  what  the  apostle 
means  when  he  says,  they  were  baptized  in,  or  by 
the  sea.  But  if  our  Baptist  brethren  be  dissatisfied 
with  this  explanation,  it  is  impossible  to  make  the 
history  bend  to  their  views:  the  Israelites  could  not 
be  dipped,  plunged  or  overwhelmed  in  the  sea,  if  the 
statement  be  true,  that  they  went  through  it  on  dry 
ground.  Here  is  another  indisputable  proof  that 
baptism  cannot  mean  immersion  only. 

The  only  immersion  on  that  occasion,  was  the 
overwhelming  of  the  Egyptians  in  the  deep,  'who 
sank  like  lead  in  the  mighty  waters,'  and  who  were 
seen  not  again,  until  they  floated  up,  upon  the  shores 
of  the  Red  Sea,  as  evidences  of  Jehovah's  wrath. 

But  we  shall  be  told  that  the  baptism  of  Israel  to 
Moses,  was  'not  Christian  baptism.'  This  is  grant- 
ed, and  yet  that  does  not  invalidate  the  argument 


138 

drawn  from  the  case, — because  the  greatest  scholar, 
and  best  critic  of  all  the  apostles,  St.  Paul,  calls  it 
baptism.  But  Mr.  B.  says,  'The  scriptures  know 
nothing  for  baptism  but  immersion.'  There  he  is 
fairly  at  issue  with  the  apostle  Paul.  I  will  not  in- 
sult the  reader's  piety  and  good  sense,  by  even  inti- 
mating which  of  the  witnesses  is  most  entitled  to 
credit. 

Most  of  the  evidence  which  our  Baptist  friends 
bring  to  support  their  mode  of  baptism,  is  brought 
from  what  is  said  of  John's  baptizing  in  Jordan,  at 
Enon;  from  the  case  of  the  eunuch,  baptized  by 
Philip;  and  from  the  passages  in  Rom.  vi,  4,  and 
Col.  ii,  12,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of  being  buried 
with  Christ  by  baptism,  &c. 

We  might  refuse,  if  we  thought  it  necessary,  all 
the  evidence  brought  from  John's  baptism;  as  it  is 
clear  from  the  scriptures,  and  especially  from  Acts 
xix, — that  '■John's  baptism?  was  essentially  different 
from  the  ^Christian  baptism.''  Of  this  truth,  the 
celebrated  Robert  Hall,  of  the  Baptist  church,  was 
fully  convinced;  as  the  reader  may  see  by  a  refer- 
ence to  his  works,  vol.  1,  p.  372,  376. 

But  as  Baptist  preachers  and  people,  do  not  agree 
among  themselves  with  regard  to  John's  baptism,  and 


139 

as  we  wish  to  allow  them  all  the  evidence  they  can 
with  any  fairness  claim,  we  shall  not  avail  ourselves 
of  the  advantage  above  alluded  to. 

It  is  said  that  John  baptized  'in  Jordan,'  also  'in 
the  wilderness;' — 'in  Bethabara,  beyond  Jordan;' — 
and  'in  Enon  near  to  Salem;'  &c.  It  is  allowed  on 
all  hands,  that  the  Greek  particles,  rendered  in^  into., 
out  of,  <^c.,  have  such  latitude  of  meaning,  and  are 
translated  so  variously,  that  nothing  certain  can  be 
inferred  in  this  controversy,  from  their  use.  The 
first  sense  which  Parkhurst  in  his  Greek  Lexicon 
gives  to  "Apo"  is,  from.  'He  came  up  from  the 
water.'  And  that  sense  is  given  it  in  this  text, — 
"Who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  (not  out  of)  the 
wrath  of  God."  And  "eis"  has  the  sense  of,  to  or 
unto,  in  the  following  scriptures,  viz.  in  Matt,  xv,  24, 
— 'I  am  not  sent  but  unto  (not  into)  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel.'  Rom.  x,  10, — 'With  the 
heart,  man  believeth  unto  (not  into)  righteousness.' 
Matt,  iii,  11, — 'I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto 
(not  into)  repentance;'  and  Matt,  xvii,  27, — 'Go  thou 
to  the  sea  (not  into)  and  cast  a  hook,'  &;c. 

The  preposition,  "En"  rendered  in  Jordan,   is  in 

the  New  Testament,  150  times  rendered,  luith;  and 

more  than  100  times  rendered  at.     And  the  passage 
13^ 


140 

would  be  fairly  rendered  at  Jordan,  or  with  the 
water  of  Jordan.  And  with  regard  to  the  eunuch, 
they  went  down  to  the  water,  and  came  up  from  the 
water,  would  be  as  correct  a  rendering  as  into  and 
out  of.  So  we  see,  that  the  argument  of  the  Bap- 
tists drawn  from  the  Greek  particles,  evaporates  at 
once,  and  we  are  left  to  determme  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism from  other  evidence.  Mr.  B.  seems  to  think, 
that  to  discuss  these  particles  is  a  *small  business,' 
but  concludes  tliat  the  translators  were  ^honest''  in 
translating  them,  and  that  'in  their  primary  signifi- 
cation they  all  favor  immersion.'  This  is  a  sum- 
mary mode,  such  as  we  have  on  p.  21  of  his  Sermon; 
where,  although  he  rejects  and  ridicules  'the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers,'  yet  declares — "I  am  perfectly 
satisfied  that  the  preponderance  of  that  testimony — 
is  most  decidedly  in  our  favor."  He  thinks  that  John's 
being  at  Jordan  and  Enon,  is  conclusive  evidence  that 
he  baptized  the  people  hy  immersion.  Then  I  reply, 
that  Annanias  baptizing  Saul  of  Tarsus,  in  a  private 
house, — and  Peter  baptizing  Cornelius,  and  others, 
in  a  private  house,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  nei- 
ther Saul  nor  Cornelius  were  immersed;  for,  reader, 
did  you  ever  hear  or  know  of  a  Baptist  preacher  im- 
mersing people  in  a  private  house.  On  the  contraiy,- 


141 

I  have  both  heard  and  read,  of  persons,  being  bap- 
tized by  pouring,  at  creeks  and  rivers. 

It  cannot  be  shown  we  presume,  that  one  of  those 
who  received  John's  baptism,  were  in  the  water  as 
much  as  ancle  deep;  as  we  shall  now  proceed  to 
show.  "The  chief  weight  of  many  arguments  are 
owing  to  our  inattention  to  the  differences  of  times, 
places,  circumstances,  manners,  &c.;  modernize,  and 
lay  the  scene  of  John's  ministry  in  this  country,  as 
most  1  presume  do;  and  then  examine  your  ideas, 
and  see  what  truth  there  is  in  them.  You  provide 
him  with  a  large  church  or  meeting  house,"  in  a 
large  town,  or  populous  country  place;  he  preaches, 
his  congregation  is  afTected,  and  at  the  close  of  the 
service,  they  request  him  to  baptize  them;  he 
marches  at  the  head  of  them  to  a  river,  for  this  pur- 
pose. You  never  see  ministers  going  with  either 
adults,  or  infants,  to  a  river  to  sprinkle  them,  but 
you  see  ministers,  who  call  themselves  Baptists, 
going  down  into  rivers  to  immerse  people;  and  you 
conclude  John  the  Baptist  used  immersion.  John, 
however,  did  not  live  in  a  large  town,  but  in  the 
wilderness;  he  had  neither  church,  nor  meeting 
house,  to  hold  the  people  who  resorted  to  him;  the 
scene  of  his  ministry  is  the  side  of  a  river;  he 


142 

preached  out  of  doors.  Geographers  inform  us,  that 
the  banks  of  the  river  Jordan  abounded  with  trees; 
and  as  the  climate  was  hot,  he  and  his  congregation 
would  surely  take  their  station  under  their  shade, 
and  enjoy  the  atmosphere,  which  would  be  cool,  in 
consequence  of  its  vicinity  to  the  water.  Now  sup- 
pose he  used  sprinkling,  where,  under  these  circum- 
stances, could  he  so  conveniently  and  agreeably  per- 
form it,  as  in  the  river  just  at  hand?''  Isaacs  on 
Baptism,  p,  47. 

"But  why,"  it  is  asked,  "did  John  take  his  sta- 
tion beside  a  river,  or  at  Enon,  where  there  was 
much  water,  if  it  were  not  for  the  convenience  of 
baptizing?''  I  answer — 1st.  Because  it  was  a  cen- 
tral situation. — "Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jor- 
dan.'' As  John  did  not  itinerate  much,  it  was  im- 
portant to  select  a  situation  for  the  exercise  of  his 
ministry,  at  which  it  would  be  most  convenient  for 
the  surrounding  inhabitants  to  attend.  2d.  When 
we  look  at  the  immense  numbers  who  resorted  from 
all  parts  to  hear  John,  it  would  be  absolutelv  neces- 
sary for  him  to  take  his  station  where  there  was 
"■much  watei''^  supposing  but  little  was  needed  for 
baptism.     "Then  went  out   unto   him  all  the  land 


143 

of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan."  Mark  v,  4;  Matt,  iii,  5. 
Make  what  deductions  you  will  from  these  state- 
ments, you  cannot  make  any  common  sense  of  the 
words,  if  you  do  not  suppose  the  numbers  to  have 
been  very  great.  They  would  not  all  come  on  foot; 
water  would  be  wanted  for  drink  for  the  people,  for 
culinary  purposes,  for  their  various  ablutions,  and 
for  their  cattle.  And  as  they  flocked  in  vast  num- 
bers to  John,  many  of  tliem,  no  doubt,  had  to  wait 
for  days  or  weeks  before  the  rite  could  be  adminis- 
tered to  them;  and  during  all  this  time,  in  the  heat 
of  Palestine,  great  quantities  of  water  would  be  ne- 
cessary for  the  accommodation  of  the  multitude.  In 
our  climate,  although  much  cooler,  we  always  select 
a  place  for  camp  meetings,  when  such  can  be  had, 
where  there  is  ^^much  water,''''  And  we  sometimes 
appoint  them  near  rivers,  although  we  expect  not 
more  than  five  thousand  persons  to  attend  them;  yet 
it  is  not  our  calculation  to  immerse  one  individual  of 
the  thousands  that  attend. 

If  the  reader  will  consult  2  Chron.  xxxii,  3,  4,  he 
will  see  a  case  in  point.  When  Sennacherib  inva- 
ded th'is  very  country  where  John  was  preaching 
and  baptizing,  we  read  that  "they  stopped  all  the 


144 

fountains,  and  the  brook  that  ran  through  the  midst 
of  the  land,  saying,  why  should  the  kings  of  Assyria 
come  and  find  much  water?''''  It  was  thought  the 
Assyrian  army  would  need  much  water;  but  no  one 
ever  suspected  their  king  intended  to  baptize  them 
in  it.  No,  they  wanted  it  for  other  purposes;  and 
so  did  the  thousands  who  attended  the  ministry  of 
John,  at  Jordan  and  Enon. 

The  reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  while  Christ, 
and  the  twelve,  and  the  seventy,  were  going  about 
into  the  towns,  villages,  &C.,  John  was  comparatively 
local  in  his  ministry,  which  made  the  multitude 
greater,  and  required  them  to  come  a  greater  dis- 
tance; and  often  to  remain  longer  to  accomplish  the 
purpose  of  their  visit.  The  people  came  to  John; 
Christ  and  his  ministers  went  to  the  people. 
Again  we  say,  it  is  utterly  incredible  that  John  could 
have  immersed  the  vast  multitudes  that  came  to  him; 
besides  doing  the  preaching  and  answering  the  ques- 
tions put  to  him,  and  (according  to  the  practice  of 
modern  Baptists,)  receiving  and  judging  of  the  ex- 
perience of  the  candidates.  I  suppose  they  will  not 
deny,  that  they  gave  in  an  experience  to  John,  espe- 
cially as  Mr.  Benedict,  in  his  history  of  the  Baptists, 
calls  John  their  ^^ancient  brother,'*'' 


145 

Robert  Hall  felt  the  weight  of  this  objection  to  im- 
mersion; drawn  from  the  number  to  be  baptized. 
Hence  he  says, — "It  is  by  no  means  certain,  howev- 
er, that  John  was  the  only  person,  who  performed 
that  ceremony;  indeed,  when  we  consider  the  prodi- 
gious multitudes  that  flocked  to  him,  the  "inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,"  it  seems  scarcely  practicable;  he 
most  probably  employed  coadjutors,"  &c.  Hall's 
Works,  vol.  1.  p.  361. 

Now  I  suppose,  reader,  that  I  have  as  good  a 
right  as  Mr.  Hall,  to  find  a  solution  to  this  difficulty. 
The  scriptures  do  not  say  one  word  about  a  single 
coadjutor  employed  by  the  Baptist.  I  account  for 
his  being  able  to  baptize  the  '■'•prodigious  multi- 
tudes^^'' as  Mr.  H.  calls  them,  on  another  principle, 
viz:  he  administered  the  ordinance  by  sprink'ling  or 
pouring.  This  was  Mr.  Wesley's  view,  of  it.  See 
his  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  6 — "It  seems,"  says  he,  "that 
they  stood  in  ranks  on  the  edge  of  the  river,  and 
John,  passing  along  before  them,  cast  water  on  their 
heads  or  feces,  by  which  means  he  might  baptize 
many  thousands  in  a  day." 

It  is  not  supposed  that  John  exercised  his  minis- 
try more  than  twelve   or  eighteen  months,  and  yet 


146 

at  a  moderate  calculation  he  must  have  baptized  one 
million  of  people,  for  Mr.  B.  supposes,  Ser.  p.  35 — 
That  Jerusalem  alojie  "contained  a  million  of  peo- 
ple;'' then  take  "Judea,  and  the  region  round  about 
"Jordan,"  Etc.,  and  allow,  that  one-half  of  the  in- 
habitants received  his  baptism,  which  we  think  not 
unlikely;  then  we  ask  during  how  many  hours  in  the 
day  could  any  man  preach,  and  stand  in  the  water, 
for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  by  immersion?  We 
will  admit  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  he  could 
endure  this  labor  six  hours  each  day,  for  eighteen 
months.  And  say,  that  he  baptized  as  expeditiously 
as  the  gentleman  in  Culpepper  did,  of  whom  Mr.  B. 
speaks,  Ser.  p.  35, — "Who  baptized  seventy-five 
persons  very  decently  in  twenty-five  minutes.''  1 
say  suppose  all  this,  and  when  he  had  accomplished 
his  eighteen  months  work,  at  the  rate  of  one  thous- 
and and  eighty  each  day,  he  would  have  given  the 
ordinance  to  a  little  upwards  of  half  a  million.  What 
Mr.  B.  says  about  its  taking  "/io  77iore  time  to  bap- 
tize by  hmnersion,  than  by  sprinklings''  Ser.  p.  35, 
utterly  astonishes  me.  Can  you  think,  gentle  read- 
er, that  this  carries  upon  its  face  the  appearance  of 
probabiUty?  Again,  John  as  the  son  of  a  Jewish 
priest,  would   most   likely  use  water  in  the  way  in 


147 

which  it  was  commonly  used  among  the  Jews,  i.  e. 
by  sprinkling.  And  if  it  be  said  that  "John's  bap- 
tism was  from  heaven;"  I  reply,  so  were  the  divers 
baptisms  among  the  Jews*  Heb.  ix,  10,  13.  And 
as  the  Jewish  priests  entered  upon  their  work  at 
thirty  years  of  age,  so  did  John.  And  using,  like 
them,  an  application  of  water  to  the  body,  as  an  em- 
blem of  moral  purity;  it  is  left  to  any  impartial  judg- 
ment, whether  he  is  most  rationally  supposed  to  have 
plunged  men  under  the  water,  (a  thing  unpractised 
among  them,)  or  whether  he  only  sprinkled  or  pour- 
ed water  on  them,  a  rite  divinely  instituted,  and 
every  day  familiarly  practised  in  that  church.'''' 
Towgood  on  Baptism,  p.  104.  And  to  the  fact  that 
John  came  as  the  harbinger  of  the  Messiah,  about  to 
appear,  for  whom  the  Jews  were  all  anxiously  look- 
ing; so  much  so,  that  they  inquired  of  him  "if  he 
were  the  Christ;" — I  say,  to  this  fact,  may  be  attrib- 
uted the  great  and  general  influx  of  disciples  to 
John.  He  applied  sacramental  water  to  them,  and 
bid  them  repent,  reform,  and  look  for,  and  believe  on 
the  Messiah,  just  about  to  appear,  who  would  apply 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  their  souls,  as  he  had  applied  the 
purifying  element  to  their  bodies;  saying  to  all  the 

people,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water;  he  shall 
14 


148 

baptize  you  iHth  the  Holy  Ghost.^''  Here  is  a  clear 
intimation  from  John  himself,  that  the  water  was 
applied  to  the  subject,  and  not  the  subject  applied  to 
the  water. 

What  John  calls,  being  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Matt,  iii,  11,  Christ  calls,  being  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  Acts  i,  5.  And  Peter  calls  it 
being  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  Acts  ii,  16. 
And  in  Acts  xi,  17,  33,  it  is  said  to  be  "poured 
out''  and  "shed  forth.''  And  in  Acts  x,  44,  it  is 
said,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them;  and  also  in  xi, 
15,  Peter  says,  it  fell  on  them.  Now  I  suppose, 
that  the  word  baptize  in  the  mouth  of  John  the 
Baptist,  is  equal  to  the  word  baptize,  in  the  mouth 
of  St.  Peter;  and  equal  also  to  the  same  word  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesvs  Christ.  Here  I  put,  not  a  lexico- 
grapher, or  an  army  of  them,  against  Dr.  Carson 
and  Mr.  Broaddus,  but  what  is  of  infinitely  more 
weight,  (for  however  great  the  witness  of  men  may 
be,  "the  witness  of  God  is  greater,")  John,  Peter, 
and  Christ,  all  against  these  gentlemen.  I  hope, 
reader,  you  will  never  become  so  learned,  as  to  de- 
clare that  pouring  is  no  baptism,  when  you  have  the 
authority  of  Christ  himself,  for  using  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  pouring,  viz:  "ye  shall   be  baptized  with 


149 

the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence."  This  is 
the  prediction  of  Christ:  and  it  had  its  fulfilment  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  the  pouring  out,  and  shed- 
ding FORTH,  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  Apostles.  Now, 
candid  reader,  was  there  any  thing  like  immersion 
here?  And  if  John  understood  the  language  which 
he  used,  when  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  spirit, 
and  if  the  sign  is  to  agree  with  the  thing  signified, 
the  shadow  with  the  substance,  how  could  John  give 
water  baptism  by  immersion,  when  he  knew  that 
Christ  would  pour  out  or  shed  forth,  the  Spirit? 
"I  speak  as  unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

But  Mr.  B.,  Ser.  p.  39,  thinks  it  very  "absurd'' 
to  suppose  that  '=the  manner  of  the  immaterial  spirit 
should  be  represented  by  the  use  that  is  made  of  a 
material  element.''  How  absurd — "strange  enough 
is  the  argument"  drawn  from  ih^  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit.  But  unfortunately  for  this  gentleman,  on  the 
very  next  page  he  is  guilty  of  this  very  absurdity. 
Hear  him  in  quoting  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25 — "Then  will 
/  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,''  &c.  He  says, 
"The  allusion  is,  unquestionably,  to  those  divine  in- 
fluences by  which  men  are  cleansed  from  their  moral 
defilement."  "Divine  influences,"  are  they  immate- 
rial? or  has  Mr.  B.  found  some  mode  of  purifying 


150 

men,  without  the  immaterial  spirit? — some  "divine 
influences,"  that  are  not  of  the  Spirit  of  God?  He 
quotes  the  very  text  that  is  against  him,  and  says, 
"God  himself  is  to  sprinkle  clean  water;"  and' this 
clean  water  to  be  applied  by  sprinkling,  represents 
the  "divine  influences,"  Mr.  B.  himself  being  judge. 
But  then  it  is  "absurd''  to  represent  the  ^Hmmaterial 
spiriV  by  the  '■''material  element  water.''  So  God 
himself,  is  represented  here  as  guilty  of  this  "absur- 
dity." For  if  the  question  be  asked,  How  will  God 
cleanse  them  from  their  idols?  the  answer  is,  with 
^^clean  tvater.^^  In  what  manner  will  he  apply  the 
element?  the  answer  is,  "I  will  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you."  It  is  strange  that  men  should  thus  talk, 
not  only  without  book,  but  against  the  Book  of  God. 
In  such  cases,  they  demonstrate  nothing  but  their 
own  folly,  or  the  weakness  and  hopelessness  of  their 
cause. 

The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  by  "pouring,"  and 
"shedding  forth,''  and  "falling  upon,''  &;c.  has 
always  been  very  embarrassing  to  our  Baptist 
friends.  Mr.  B  ,  Ser.  p.  39,  labors  hard  to  evade 
the  matter,  by  attempting  to  show  that  the  disci- 
ciples,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  immersed  in 
the  Spirit.     He  asks,  "Were  they  immersed  in  the 


151 

Spirit,  when  the  Spirit  filled  the  room  where  they 
were  sitting,  or  were  they  not?     I  am  willing  your 
common  sense  should  decide."     Here,  he  will  have 
it,  that   though   the  Spirit   was  "poured,"  it  was 
poured  until  the  room  was  filled,  so  that  they  were 
immersed  in  it.^'^     It  is  strange,  that  Christian  men 
will  persist  in  tying  down  the  word  baptize,  to  one 
meaning  only, — and  that  at  the  expense  of  the  word 
of  God,  and  even  of  common   sense.     For  that  he 
has  "erred  in  vision,''  or  "stumbled  in  judgment," — 
the  reader  can  clearly  see,  by  a  reference  to  Acts  ii. 
Not  one  word  is  said  there  about  the  Spirit  ^^jill- 
ing  the  house,''''  nor  of  its  ^^overwhelming  the  disci- 
ples."    The  language   in   Acts  ii,   1,   2,  is,  "And 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.     And  sud- 
denly there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  a  rush- 
ing mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.     And  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat   upon  each  of 
them.     And   they  were   all   filled   with    the  Holy 
Ghost."     If  it  is  said  the  house  was  filled,  and  they 
were  therefore  immersed; — the  questions    may  be 
asked,  with  what  was  the  house  filled?  with  what 

were  they  immersed?     Jn  English,  it  is  expressed 
14* 


152 

by  the  pronoun  "it," — "it  tilled  all  the  house;"  the 
Greek  has  no  pronoun.  Well,  what  is  the  antece- 
dent to  "i^?''  I  answer,  the  word  ^'sound.'>'  The 
word  in  the  Greek  is,  "echos,''  an  echo,  a  reverbe- 
rating sound. 

So  it  seems  Mr.  B.  has  only  erred  in  vision,  so  far 
as  to  mistake  a  sound,  an  echo,  for  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Is  then  a  reverberating  sound,  surrounding  the  bo- 
dies of  the  apostles;  and  the  Spirit  of  God  falling 
upon  their  hearts,  the  same  thing?  the  reader  can 
judge. 

The  sound  filled  the  house, — and,  if  you  please, 
though  it  sounds  rather  odd, — they  were  immersed 
in  the  sound.  But  this  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 
the  cloven  tongues,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  mentioned  in 
the  following  verses.  '■''They  were  all  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  The  sound  filled  the  place; 
the  Spirit  filled  the  persons;  the  sound  was  with- 
out them;  the  Spirit  was  within  them. 

The  old  prophet  did  not  commit  such  a  blunder,  as 
to  mistake  the  sound  of  wind,  for  the  voice  of  the 
Spirit.  "And  behold,  the  Lord  passed  by,  and  a 
great  and  strong  wind  rent  the  mountains,  and  brake 
in  pieces  the  rocks,  before  the  Lord;  but  the  Lord 
was  not  in  the  wind." — 1  Kings  xix,  11.     As  in 


153 

this  case,  the  tvlnd  came  before  the  Lord  spake  to 
the  prophet,  in  "a  still  small  voice;'' — so,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  the  rushing^  mighty  icind  came 
first,  and  filled  the  house, — then  the  Lord  poured 
OUT  upon  them  the  Holy  Ghost » 

But,  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
Spirit  is  intended  by  the  sound;  the  Baptist  manner 
of  administering  the  ordinance,  is  not  helped  by  it. 
For  the  sound,  or  Spirit,  came  down,  descending 
upon  them.  The  baptismal  element  came  upon  the 
subjects.  They  did  not  descend  into  it.  The  ele- 
ment was  active;  the  subjects  were  passive;  which 
exactly  corresponds  with  our  mode.  In  the  mode  of 
Mr.  B.  this  order  is  completely  reversed.  The  view 
of  Mr.  Broaddus,  on  this  case,  makes  against  a  favo- 
rite notion  of  many  of  his  Baptist  brethren, — viz: 
that  the  baptism  promised  by  Christ,  and  given  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  restricted  to  the  apostles 
as  the  subjects; — and  to  the  extraordinary  or  mira- 
culous gifts  conferred  upon  them; — and  not  to  the 
ordinary  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  conferred  upon  all 
Christians,  For  if,  as  he  says,  "the  wind  was  the 
Spirit,'^''  then  all  present  were  equally  immersed  with 
the  apostles; — and  we  learn  from  ver.  15,  of  the 
preceding  chapter,  that  "the  number  of  the  names 


154 

together  were  about  a  hundred  and  twenty.'''  "And 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all,  with  one  accord,  in  one  place."  "And 
suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,''  &c.  So 
that  they  all  obtained  the  extraordinary  influences 
of  the  Spirit.  It  is  not  admitted  by  those  who  refer 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  to  its  extraordinary  in- 
fluences, that  any  received  it,  except  the  twelve 
apostles; — yet  Mr.  B's  interpretations  of  the  matter, 
give  miraculous  powers  to  them  all,  one  hundred 
and  twenty  in  number.  Both  he  and  they  are  wrong, 
for  the  mind  was  not  the  Spirit; — and  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  not  confined  to  the  apostles: 
for  Joel  said,  "It  shall  be  poured  out  upon  all 
FLESH,"  ver.  17; — and  Peter  said,  "The  promise  is 
to  all,  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,''''  ver. 
39.  Reader,  no  man  in  his  senses,  ever  supposed, 
that  "all  flesh,"— "all  that  the  Lord  should  call,"  to 
be  Christians,  were  to  receive  the  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  You  see,  then,  with  what 
propriety  our  Baptist  friends,  attempt  to  turn  into 
ridicule,  the  practice  of  Pedobaptists,  praying  for 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  "Judge  ye  what  I 
say." 
In  every  case   where   the  spirit  is  spoken  of,  as 


155 

having  been  given,  it  is  said  to   have  been  'shed 

FORTH,'    or    'poured  OUT,'    01    'CAME    ON  THEM,'    Or 

'fell  ox  all  THEM,  which  heard  the  word.'  'On 
the  Gentiles,  also,  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Acts  x,  44,  45, — and  in  xi,  15, 16 — 
Peter  says,  "And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy 
Ghost  FELL  ON  them,,  as  on  us,  at  the  begin- 
ning. Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  ivith 
water;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost;"  there  is  no  wind,  or  sound,  said  to  have 
filled  the  house  of  Cornelius,  when  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  poured  out  upon  the  Gentiles.  This,  notwith- 
standing, Peter  calls  a  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  pouring  out  or  falling  upon  them. 

Query — Did  Peter  give  them  water  baptism  by 
immersion,  in  full  view  of  the  fact,  that  God  had 
just  given  them  spiritual  baptism  by  pouring?  It  is 
utterly  incredible. 

It  is  enough  for  me,  to  be  satisfied,  that  I  follow 
the  example  of  him  who  baptizes  with  the  Holy 
Ghost;  that  I  apply  the  vjater  to  men'^s  bodies  as  he 
applies  the  Spirit  to  their  souls.  Thus  a  spiritual 
baptism,  will  be  administered  in  the  church  to  the 
end  of  time;  and  this  ordinance  will  be  given  accord- 


156 

ing  to  the  Pedobaptist  mode;  for  it  is  written,  "I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh. V  See  Isaacs 
on  Baptism,  p.  57,  58. 

So  much  for  Mr.  B.  and  his  "immersion  in  the 
Spirit."  Again — Most  of  the  cases  of  baptism  re- 
corded in  the  Acts,  furnish  strong,  not  to  say,  con- 
clusive evidence,  that  they  were  not  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, but  in  some  other  way. 

I  am  aware  that  our  Baptist  friends  have  a  won- 
derful facility  at  finding  ^streams,''  ^baths,^  Hanlcs,^ 
Spools,''  'hogsheads,'  (^c,  Ser.  p.  35,  whenever  they 
read  of  a  case  of  baptism.  Unfortunately  for  their 
cause,  however,  they  very  often  cannot  agree  among 
themselves,  concerning  the  means  or  facilities,  for 
giving  the  ordinance  by  immersion,  in  the  particu- 
lar case.  Hence,  when  you  ask,  where  were  the 
three  thousand  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost? 
each  sets  his  imagination  to  work,  to  find  a  baptizing 
place.  Mr.  B.  says,  Ser.  p.  38,  "The  city  was  wa- 
tered by  the  brook  Kidron,  and  the  pools  of  Siloam 
and  Bethesda,  which  would  furnish  an  abundant  sup- 
ply of  water."  In  the  warm  season,  the  brook  Kid- 
ron v/as  generally  dry,  and  travellers  say  that  it  is 
dry  nine  months  in  the  year;  and  that  those  3000 
were  baptized  in  warm  weather,  is  evident  from  the. 


157 

fact,  that  the  feast  of  Pentecost  took  place  at  the 
close  of  wheat  harvest.  This  stream  was  always 
inconsiderable y  except  after  heavy  rains:  and  these 
made  the  stream  muddy  and  unfit  for  bathing.  Mr. 
B.  says  that  the  filth  from  the  city  did  not  run  up 
stream,  and  therefore  they  might  have  gone  above 
the  city  for  the  purpose  of  immersion.  But  the 
reader  will  recollect  that  this  gentleman  has  said 
"Jerusalem  contained  a  million  of  inhabitants;"  and 
according  to  Strabo,  was  about  60  furlongs,  or  about 
eight  miles  in  length.  Then  supposing  the  preach- 
ing to  have  taken  place  in  the  temple,  as  is  most 
likely;  and  admitting,  that  temple  to  have  stood  in 
the  midst  of  the  city;  it  would  have  been  a  journey 
of  at  least  four  miles,  to  have  gotten  to  Kidron  above 
the  city.  Some  of  our  Baptist  friends,  feeling  the 
difficulty  connected  with  the  supposition  that  they 
were  baptized  in  Kidron,  (especially  as,  the  passage 
says  not  one  word  about  their  leaving  the  place  of 
preaching,in  order  to  receive  the  ordinance,)  and  their 
theory  requiring  them  to  find  some  means  whereby 
to  immerse  the  3000,  have  supposed,  that  they  were 
baptized  in  the  ^'brazen  laver,^^ — or  in  the  vessels 
used  by  the  Jews  for  purification,  &;c.  The  reader 
will  recollect  that  these  public,  and  private,  bathing 


168 

places,  were  in  the  keeping  of  the  enemies  of  Christ 
—those  who  had  been  his  betrayers  and  murderers. 
It  is  not  Hkely  that  they  would  allow  Peter,  and  the 
other  apostles,  to  use  them  for  the  baptizing  of  their 
converts.  If  there  had  been  a  probability  that  Pe- 
ter wished  to  drown  those  who  had  received  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Messiahship,  then,  indeed,  he 
might  possibly  have  been  permitted  to  use  their 
baths.  Moreover,  the  manner  of  purifying  among 
the  Jews  must  have  been,  genei'ally^  at  least,  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  we  may  learn  from  John 
ii,  6 — "And  there  were  set  six  vxiter  pots  of  stone, 
after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews."  We 
have  no  doubt,  there  was  water  enough  in  Jerusa- 
lem, to  immerse  ten  thousand  people,  and  we  should 
believe  they  were  baptized  by  that  mode,  if  we  had 
any  evidence  of  it,  But,  in  ihe  total  absence  oi  d\\ 
evidence,  we  cannot  take  the  suppositions  of  our 
Baptist  friendsybrproq/*. 

Again,  the  cases  of  Cornelius  and  his  family; 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  those  that  Paul  met  at  Ephesus, 
Acts  xix,  and  the  jailor  and  his  family  at  Philippi, 
were  all  cases  where  the  ordinance  was  administered 
without  so  much  as  a'bath,''  or  ^cistern,'  being  men- 
tioned.    But   the  immersionists  are  always   ready 


159 

with  the  means  to  immerse;  they  find  a  'bathing  tub' 
in  the  house  of  CorneUus,  and  a  tank,  or  cistern,  in 
the  jail  at  PhiHppij  and  a  bath  in  the  private  house, 
where  Ananias  found  penitent  Saul  of  Tarsus.  1 
would  just  suggest,  that  if  they  were  to  apply  the 
reasoning  which  they  use  with  regard  to  'infant  bap- 
tism' to  these  cases,  it  would  ruin  their  own  cause. 
The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  family,  and  of  the 
eunuch,  are  all  the  Christian  baptisms  that  were 
performed  out  of  doors,  so  far  as  we  have  any  infor- 
mation. On  the  case  of  Lydia,  Mr.  B.,  Ser.  p.  37, 
makes  a  remark  calculated  to  mislead  the  reader. — 
*'lt  is  worthy  of  remark,"  says  he,  "that  the  sermon 
which  produced  her  conversion,  was  preached  by  the 
river  side,  and  that  she  and  her  family  were  bap- 
tized before  they  went  into  her  house.  As  they 
were  at  the  river  side  they  could  readily  be  immers- 
ed.''  And  1  say, as  they  were  7iear  the' ivater,  they 
could  be  readily  sprinkled.  If  the  reader  will  be  at 
the  pains  to  look  at  Acts  xvi,  13, 14, 15,  he  will  see 
plainly,  that  Mr.  B's  remark  is  unfair,  and  makes 
an  erroneous  impression.  The  state  of  the  case  was 
simply  this: — Paul,  Silas,  Timothy  and  Luke,  in 
their  travel,  came  to  Philippi;  they  remained  there 

'certain  daysj'  and   when  the  Sabbath  came,   they 
15 


160 

walked 'ow^o/^Ae'  idolatrous  city,  and  found  a  few 
women  by  the  river  side  holding  a  prayer  meeting. 
What,  it  may  be  asked,  induced  these  women  to  go 
out  there  to  worship?  Not  to  receive  baptism,  can- 
did reader;  that,  in  all  probability,  was  not  in  all  their 
thoughts,  when  they  went  to  the  river  side.  They 
were  either  Jews  or  proselytes,  who  were  not  suf- 
fered to  worship  the  true  God  within  the  limits  of 
the  heathen  city.  And  when  the  apostles  went  out, 
and,  as  by  accident,  fell  in  with  these  devout  women, 
they  'sat  down  and  spake  to  them.'  And  while 
Paul  was  speaking,  "the  Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart." 
And  he,  pursuing  the  "apostolic  pattern,"  gave  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  just  where  the  word  took  ef- 
fect. When  the  word  took  effect  on  the  people  out 
o[  doors,  they  did  not  go  into  the  house  to  adminis- 
ter the  ordinance;  and  when  it  took  effect  in  the 
house,  they  did  not  go  out  of  doors  to  give"  the  ordi- 
nance! If  Paul  had  been  a  preacher  of  the  modern 
Baptist  stamp,  and  had  worked  by  their  "pattern," 
he  would  not  have  given  Lydia  baptism  until  she 
had  related  a  'Christian  experience,'  such  as  should 
be  considered  "evangelical;"  and  perhaps,  not  until 
she  had  waited  for  weeks  or  months,  to  be  certain 
that  she  was  not  deceived.     Paul's  practice  in  this 


161 

case  was  just  such  as  a  Pedobaptist's  would  have 
been.  They  never  go  from  water  in  order  to  baptize. 
And  he  baptized  Lydia  and  her  family  at  the  ^river 
side,''  not  ix  the  river;  before  they  went  into  the 
house,  or  even  into  the  city. 

Reader,  this  presents  a  striking  contrast  with  a 
case,  which  occurred  under  the  administration  of  a 
Baptist  preacher,  not  fifty  miles  from  where  Mr.  B. 
now  lives.  A  candidate  presented  himself  in  the 
'church  meeting,'  related  his  'experience;'  from 
which  it  appeared  he  had  been  convicted  several 
years  before,  and  converted  some  twelve  months,  or 
more,  prior  to  his  offering  himself  for  baptism.  The 
preacher  was  highly  delighted  with  the  delay;  pro- 
nounced it  an  'apostolical  experience' — Hhe  work  not 
of  a  few  days  but  ofyears;^  and  was  admitted  to  the 
ordinance.  So  he  understood  the  'apostolic  pattern.' 
I  leave  it  to  the  candor  and  common  sense  of  the 
reader,  whether  the  New  Testament  furnishes  any 
such  case  as  the  above!  Saul,  of  Tarsus,  was  bap- 
tized on  the  third  day  after  his  conviction,  and  that 
is  the  longest  delay  we  read  of.  Injustice  to  Mr.  B., 
I  must  say,  he  is  not  the  preacher  referred  to. 

On  the  case  of  the  jailor.  Acts  xvi,  23  to  40,  Mr. 
B.,  Ser.  p.  37,  has  attempted  the  most  shameful  im- 


162 

position  upon  the  reader,  that  I  ever  recollect  to 
have  seen  in  print.  He  does  indeed  'correct  the 
diction  of  the  spirit  by  that  of  the  party,'  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  G.  Campbell,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  B. 
Putting  certain  words  in  capital  letters,  he  makes  an 
attempt  to  prove  that  the  jailor  and  his  family  went 
out  to  a  place  where  there  was  water  sufficient  to 
immerse  them.  1  was  more  convinced  from  this 
part  of  Mr.  B's  sermon,  than  from  any  other,  that 
he  considered  his  cause  in  danger.  I  request  the 
reader  to  take  up  his  bible,  the  plain  man's  lexicon^ 
and  just  look  at  the  passage  in  the  spirit  of  candor, 
He  will  see,  without  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  that 
this  gentleman  has  attempted  to  make  the  passage 
speak  a  language,  which  Luke,  the  writer,  never  in- 
tended. He  has  put  the  words  '■hrovght^  and  'o?/f,' 
and  '•brought  them  into  his  house'  in  capitals,  and 
says,  "As  to  the  facilities  for  obtaining  water,  the 
river  Strymon,  as  geographers  tell  us,  ran  through 
the  city,  where  water  could  be  had,  even  if  the  jailor 
had  no  bathing  cistern  on  his  premises;''  and  then 
says,  "I  have  shown  that  the  jailor,  and  Paul,  and  Si- 
las, went  out  of  the  house  to  administer  baptism,  and 
though  they  should  have  to  go  five  miles  to  a  river 
or  bath,!  will  put  them  to  that  trouble,  before  I  will 


163 

consent  that  haptho  shall  be  deprived  of  the  mean- 
ing which  Professor  Stuart  says  "all  lexicographers 
and  critics  of  any  note,  have  assigned  to  it.'  "  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  says  just  the  contrary,  as  I  have  shown 
in  another  place.  Mr.  B.  proceeds — "But  the  truth 
js,  to  a  mind  disposed  to  be  governed  by  the  plain, 
common  sense  meaning  of  the  language  of  scripture, 
there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  finding  water  for  im- 
mersion,  within  reach  of  the  jailor's  house,  or 
indeed  in  his  house,  prepared  for  the  purpose  in  a 
HOGSHEAD,  if  it  wcrc  not  so  fully  stated  that  they 
were  baptized  while  out  of  the  houseJ^  Baptist 
preachers  heretofore  (so  far  as  I  am  informed)  have 
never  dreamed  that  they  were  baptized  out  of  the 
house,  but  have  invented  a  ^cisterrC  or  '-tank,^  in  the 
jail.  This  gentleman  has  struck  out  a  new  course; 
invented  a  new  salvo  for  the  case.  He  had  just  as 
well  have  put  the  words  Hhrust  them  into,''  in  verse 
24,  in  capitals,  to  prove  that  Paul  dipped  them  into 
the  ^Strymon,''  as  to  have  put  ^brought  them  out,'  and 
^brought  them  into  his  house,''  in  capitals,  to  prove 
that  the^  went  out  to  a  baptizing  place.  One  would 
have  been  as  near  the  truth  as  the  other.  And 
these  are  the  men  who  stand  up  and  tell  the  people 
they  only  need  to  look  into  the  New  Testament, 
15* 


164 

without  note  or  comment,  to  see  'the  law  of  baptism,* 
and  the  practice  of  the  apostles  mider  that  law. 
^The  Bible,'  say  they,  'is  the  best  book  on  baptism.' 

Most  commentators  give  the  text  first,  and  then 
the  explanation,  but  these  reverse  this  order.  They 
give  the  Baptist  comment  j/?rs?,  and  then  the  sacred 
text.  The  comment  is  'the  word  baptize  means  to 
dip  or  immerse  only^  and  then  if  you  meet  with  a 
text  like  the  one  under  consideration,  where  it  is 
difficult  to  find  water  for  immersion,  then  you  must 
apply  your  comment  on  the  ivord  ^haptize;^  and 
have  them  plunged,  any  how,  even  if  you  immerse 
them  in  a  figure,  'or  immerse  them  in  a  wind  or 
sound,^  for  the  Spirit,  or  have  them  go  to  the  river 
'Strymon,'  or  even  five  miles  at  midnight;  and  if 
you  cannot  see  that  they  were  really  out  of  doors, 
you  can  immerse  them  'in  a  hogshead'  of  water, 
prepared  for  the  purpose. 

I  will  now  give  the  reader  a  view  of  this  case  as 
it  stands  in  the  passage  referred  to  above.  In  v. 
23  we  find  that  'the  magistrates  laid  many  stripes 
on  Paul  and  Silas,  and  cast  them  into  prison,  charg- 
ing the  jailor  to  keep  them  safely.'  In  v.  24,  we 
find,  'he  having  received  such  a  charge,  thrust  them 
into  the  inner  prison,  and  made  their  feet  fast  in  the 


165 

stocks.'  I  ask,  where  are  they  now?  you  say  they 
are  in  the  inner  prison,  or  dungeon.  Very  good. 
When  God  had  shaken  the  jail  with  an  earthquake, 
V.  26,  and  the  doors  flew  open,  "and  every  one's 
bands  were  loosed,"  the  jailor  awakening  up,  'call- 
ed for  a  ligfft,  sprang  in,  and  fell  down  before  Paul 
and  Silas,'  and  brought  them  out,  and  said,  sirs, 
what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  v.  29,  30.  I  ask,  where 
are  they  now?  you  say  just  where  they  were  before 
they  were  put  in  the  inner  prison;  that  is  true. 
Reader  you  will  take  notice  that  the  words  ^brought 
them  out,^  occur  before  any  thing  is  said  either  about 
believing  or  baptism,  and  before  there  was  any 
preaching.  And  they  said,  v.  31,  'Believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy 
house.'  'And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the 
night,  and  washed  their  stripes;  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his,  straightway.^  v.  33.  'And  when  he 
had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before 
them,'  &c.  v.  34.  And  the  reader  will  find  in  v. 
40,  'That  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered 
into  the  Kouse  of  Lydia.' 

Mr.  B's  version  of  the  matter  makes  them  come 
out  of  the  house  at  midnight  to  preach  the  gospel,  as 
well  as  to  baptize;  for  the  words  brought  them  outy 


166 

are  before  his  'speaking  to  them  (he  word  of  the 
Lord,'  for  they  are  not  said  to  have  been  brought 
into  his  house,  until  after  the  baptizing;  he  brought 
them  in  to  give  them  something  to  eat.  As  Mr.  B 
will  have  them  brought  out  of  the  jail  before  the  ser- 
vice took  place,  and  as  we  have  seen  they  were  not  in 
the  jailor's  apartment  until  after  the  baptism;  then 
they  must  have  exhibited  the  odd  spectacle,  of  per- 
sons going  out  of  a  building  to  preach  at  midnight: 
— unfortunately  for  Mr.  B's  theory,  w^here  the  bring- 
ing out  is  spoken  of,  no  body  is  mentioned  but  Paul, 
Silas,  and  the  jailor.  Yet  when  the  baptizing  is 
mentioned,  'Ae  and  all  his'  are  'baptized  straight- 
way.^ The  true  state  of  the  case  was  evidently  this, 
— he  brought  them  out  of  the  dungeon^  into  the  outer 
prison,  and  asked,  *What  must  I  do  to  be  savedl' 
The  family,  children  and  domestics  are  assembled 
to  hear  the  sermon,  'and  they  spake  unto  him  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.'' 
Here  the  Greek  word  ^'■oikia''''  is  used,  which  signi- 
fies the  household,  the  whole  domestic  establishment, 
according  to  Schrevelius's  Lexicon.  He  interprets  it 
by  the  Latin  word  domus,  which  Cole's  Latin  Dic- 
tionary interprets,  a  house,  family ^  household,  &;c. 
When  the  sermon  was  over,   and  the  jailor  had 


167 

received  baptism,  with  all  his  family,  and  had  wash- 
ed the  stripes  of  the  preachers,  'he  took  them  into 
his  house,  and  set  mesit  before  them,' &;c.  Now,  I 
suppose,  in  this,  as  in  all  large  cities,  the  jailor  oc- 
cupied a  part  of  the  same  building  with  the  prison- 
ers. At  least,  he  was  so  near,  that  in  the  midnight 
hour,  when  he  awaked  up,  he  saw  "the  prison  doors 
open,"  and  when  he  drew  out  his  sword  to  commit 
suicide,  Paul  cried  to  him,  "do  thyself  no  harm." 
— And  he  'called  for  a  light,  and  sprang  in.'  I  ask 
again,  where?  into  the  inner  prison.  The  phraseol- 
ogy of  the  passage  would  leave  the  impression  on 
the  mind  of  an  unbiassed  reader,  that  the  jailor's 
family  resided  in  a  part  of  the  same  building  with 
the  prisoners.  The  Roman  law  made  prison-keep- 
ers answerable  for  the  safe  keeping  of  those  commit- 
ted to  them: — hence,  the  precaution  this  man  took, 
to  put  the  prisoners  in  the  dungeon,  and  make  'their 
feet  fast  in  the  stocks.'  And  hence  he  was  about  to 
take  his  own  life,  'when  he  supposed  the  prisoners 
had  fled.'  We  find,  from  Acts  xii,  18,  19,  that  the 
keepers  of  the  prison,  who  let  Peter  escape,  paid  for 
it  with  their  lives.  And  they  were  under  the  same 
civil  jurisdiction,  or  laws,  with  the  Philippian  jailor. 
I  am   quite  willing  to  leave  it  to   the  decision   of 


168 

the  intelligent  reader;  in  view  of  the  law, — in  view 
of  the  fact  of  Peter's  escape,  and  the  death  of  those 
who  suffered  him  to  escape, — in  view  of  its  being 
midnight,  and  in  view  of  the  passage  saying  not  one 
word  about  their  going  aicay  from  the  prison; — 
whether  they  went  to  the  "river  Strymon,"  or  to 
any  other  place,  for  the  -purpose  of  immersion?  So 
much  for  Mr.  B's  '^brought  thex  out."  As  it 
regards  a  hath  or  cistern  in  the  prison^  for  the  com- 
fort and  cleanliness  of  the  prisoners,  we  would  re- 
mark that  such  things  are  not  very  common,  even 
now,  after  all  the  untiring  efforts  of  such  men  as  John 
Howard,  the  philanthropist,  in  behalf  of  prisoners; 
and  they  made  no  part  of  the  appendages  of  an  an- 
cient heathen  prison.  I  think  it  will  appear,  that 
the  circumstances  of  this  case  of  baptism,  are  quite 
as  inflexible  against  immersion,  as  Mr.  B.  is  dis- 
posed to  think  the  Greek  word  baptizo,  is  for  it. 
And  if  he  had  possessed  candor  enough  to  have 
quoted  his  Schrevelius  on  this  word,  as  he  did  on  the 
word  '■'■paidia''''  when  arguir.g  against  the  ^infants,'' 
Ser.  p.  13,  we  should  have  had  a  different  account  of 
it.  It  suited  his  purpose  better,  to  quote  Dr.  Carson, 
as  he  makes  the  word  mean  immersion  only.  And  if 
in  the  case  above  referred  to,  viz.  ^^paidia,^^  he  had 


169 

possessed  the  candor  to  have  quoted  the  parallel 
passage  in  Luke  xviii,  15,  he  would  have  found  the 
word  *'&re2?^a"  the  plural  of  ireja^os,  used,  which 
Schrevelius  would  have  informed  him  signifies  "i«- 
fans,'^^  an  '''■infant''''  a  ^'-babe.^^  He  would  have  thus 
been  saved  from  the  ridiculous  attitude  of  a  Christian 
teacher  attempting  to  explain  away  the  words  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  used  by  St.  Mark. 

The  case  of  the  eunuch,  found  in  Acts  viii,  26  to 
39,  is  considered  by  our  opponents  as  conclusiv*  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  immersion.  But  when  this  matter 
is  sifted  a  little,  the  evidence  will  not  appear  quite  as 
conclusive  as  those  have  thought,  who  have  been 
taught  all  their  life  to  consider  nothing  to  be  baptism 
that  falls  short  of  dipping  or  immersion.  With  re- 
gard to  the  prepositions  used  here,  we  have  shown 
in  another  place,  that  nothing  can  be  gathered  from 
their  use  in  this  controversy.  Mr.  B.  seems  to 
concede,  that  the  eunuch's  immersion  cannot  be 
proved  '■''going  into'''  and  ^^coming  ouV  of  the  wa- 
ter. He  says,  Strict,  page  17,  and  Ser.  page  36, 
"you  must  not  suppose  that  my  argument  is  founded 
on  going  into,  and  coming  out  of,  the  water:  for  all 
this,  I  know,  might  be  done  without  any  immersion; 
here  is  the  argument — why  should  they  go  into  the 


no 

water,  merely  to  sprinkle?'''*  and  asks,  "Who  ever 
said  that  going  into  the  water,  means  immersion?  Did 
any  inteihgent  man  ever  say  so?"  I  reply  that  many 
men  have  said  so;  but  as  it  regards  their  intelligence, 
we  say  nothing.  In  this  case,  as  in  most  others,  Mr. 
B.  has  to  resort  to  his  version  of  baptizo. 

When  we  refer  to  the  passage,  we  find  that  the 
eunuch  was  travelling  through  a  country  which  was 
'a  desert,'^  and,  consequently,  the  water  they  came 
to,  was  not  a  considerable  stream;  as  is  probabloy 
we  think,  from  the  fact  that  in  that  country  even 
small  streams  made  the  places  where  they  were 
found,  populous,  as  any  person  can  see  by  a  refer- 
ence to  the  map.  And,  moreover,  as  the  streams 
where  John  is  said  to  have  administered  the  ordi- 
nance, are  mentioned  by  name,  it  is  probable  that  if 
this  had  been  a  water  course,  or  stream,  worthy  a 
name,  its  name  also  would  have  been  given.  The 
language  of  the  eunuch  is,  'see  here  is  water!'  An 
exclamation,  as  though  he  had  unexpectedly  discov- 
ered it.  The  reader  may  find,  by  a  reference  to 
the  passage  which  he  was  reading  at  the  time  Philip 
fell  in  with  him,  that  it  stands  in  intimate  connexion 
with,  and  is  a  part  of  the  same  prophecy,  where 
Isaiah  lii,  15,  speaks  of  Christ   'sprinkling  many 


171 

nations.^  And  indeed  there  are  but  six  verses  be- 
tween that  passage  and  the  text,  from  which  "PhiHp 
preached  unto  him  Jesus."  He  no  doubt  gave  him 
to  understand,  that,  himself  and  others  were  acting 
under  a  commission  to  'disciple  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them,'  &;c.  and,  of  consequence,  when  he  be- 
came willing  to  receive  Christ,  he  offered  himself 
for  baptism.  I  can  see,  therefore,  how  he  could 
readily  understand  the  rite  of  initiation  to  be  admin- 
istered by  sprinkling.  For,  whether  the  passage 
above  quoted  was  explained  by  Philip  as  alluding  to 
baptism  literally,  or  to  the  thing  signified  by  it,  in 
either  case  the  mode  is  by  "  '■sprinliling^  many  na- 
tions.'' So  I  conclude  that  he  did  not  give  him 
baptism  by  immersion,  as  a  symbol  of  that  spiritual 
washing,  that  was  to  be  efiected  by  sprinkling.  But, 
perhaps,  an  immersionist  would  like  to  suggest,  that 
the  prophet  refers  to  what  Christ  would  cZo  himself; 
and  that,  therefore,  the  prophecy  cannot  refer  to  the 
apostle's  making  "disciples  of  the  nations  by  sprink- 
ling." I  reply,  that  it  is  very  common  in  Scripture 
language  for  God  to  be  represented  as  doing,  what 
he  causes  to  be  done.  The  reader  can  find  a  strik- 
ing case  in  point,  John  iii,  22.     "After  these  things 

came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea; 
16 


172 

and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and  baptized.''''  Com- 
pare this  with  the  1st  and  2d  v.  of  the  next  chapter: 
"When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees 
had  'heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  dis- 
ciples than  John.'  Though  Jesus  himself  baptized 
not,  hut  his  disciples.^''  Here  is  evidently  as  plain  a 
declaration  that  ^Christ  baptized,''  as  the  prophet 
has,  'he  shall  sprinkle  many  nations,'  and  yet  we 
are  informed  subsequently  that  ^ Jesus  baptized  not, 
but  his  disciples.' 

How  natural  then  was  it,  for  the  eunuch  to  ask 
for  baptism,  if  Philip  gave  him  an  explanation  of  the 
prophecy;  as  referring  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism,  given  by  "sprinkling  the  nations.''  What- 
ever others  may  think,  I  am  decidedly  of  the  opin- 
ion that  this  is  the  genuine  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sage. And  that  the  whole  of  the  51st,  and  52d,  chap- 
ters of  Isaiah,  refer  to  what  should  take  place  under 
the  gospel;  "the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory 
that  should  follow,"  in  the  setting  up,  and  establish- 
ment of  the  gospel  kingdom;  when  the  Messiah 
should  "see  his  seed,"  'and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord 
should  prosper  in  his  hands,'  when  'his  doctrine'  shall 
'come  down'  on  the  nations  'as  rain,'  under  the 
preaching    of    his  apostles,  and    their    successors., 


173 

and  when  by  their  hands,  he  should  ^sprinkle  many 
nations.'' 

I  conclude  from  the  above,  that  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  came  to  a  spring  or  run  of  water;  that  they 
both  alighted,  and  going  to  the  water,  he  received 
the  ordinance,  and  afterwards  went  on  his  way  re- 
joicing. But  Mr.  B.  asks,  'Why  should  they  go 
into  the  w^ater  in  order  to  sprinkle?''  I  reply,  for 
aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  they  were  no 
more  in  the  ivater,  than  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
were,  ''when  they  came  'efs'  to  Jordan  to  cut  down 
wood,"  2  Kings  vi,  4;  the  same  proposition  is  used 
in  the  case  under  consideration.  1  presume  the 
sons  of  the  prophets  hardly  stood  in  the  river  to  fell 
trees. 

The  missionary,  Mr.  Wolf,  found  a  sect  of  Chris- 
tians in  Mesopotamia,  who  called  themselves  'the 
followers  of  John  the  Baptist,  who  baptized  children 
at  thirty  days  old,  and  who  performed  the  rite  by 
sprinkling  water  upon  the  child  at  the  edge  of  a 
river.  See  his  Journal,  vol.  2,  p.  311,  as  quoted 
by  Watson.  Mr.  Wolf  asks,  "Why  do  they  bap- 
tize in  rivers?"  Answer:  'Because  St.  John  the 
Baptist  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan.'  "Thus  we 
have  in  modern  times,  river  baptism  without  immer^ 
sion.'^' 


174 

We  next  notice,  a  favorite  argument  of  our  Bap- 
tist friends,  drawn  from  the  supposed  immersion  of 
Christ.  'If  no  body  else  ever  was  baptized  by  im- 
mersion,' say  they,  'surely  the  Master  icas;  and  we 
are  commanded  to  take  up  our  cross  and  follow  him.^ 
We  are  by  no  means  convinced  that  Christ  was  im- 
mersed. And  if  it  could  be  shown  that  he  was,  I 
have  not  been  able  to  find  in  the  New  Testament 
the  command,  to  receive  the  same  baptism  that  he 
received.  I  hold,  that  the  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  very  peculiar;  such  as  no  other  person  ever  re- 
ceived. 1st.  He  being  without  sin,  could  neither  re- 
pent, nor  promise  amendment  of  life.  2d.  Being 
the  wisdom  of  God,  he  could  be  taught  nothing.  3d. 
Being  the  Christ,  he  could  not  profess  that  he  would 
believe  in  him,  that  should  come  after  him,  that  is 
in  himself.  He  therefore  was  baptized:  1st.  To 
honor  the  office  of  his  herald:  2d.  That  he  miffht 
fulfil  the  righteousness  of  John's  dispensation:  and 
3d.  That  by  this  rite  he  might  be  inducted  into, — 
installed  in  his  public  office,  as  the  'prophet  like  to 
Moses;'  as  the  High  Priest  over  the  house  of  God. 
The  language  of  Robert  Hall  is,  'He  was  inaugu- 
rated into  his  office  at  his  baptism,  till  which  period 
he  remained  in  the  obscurity  of  private  life,  &€.' 
See  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  372. 


175 

At  thirty  years  of  age  tlie  priests  were  'washed 
with  water;'  and 'anointed  with  oil;'  Exodus  xxix,  4, 
7,  and  Leviticus  viii,  (3,  10,  11,  12.  So  we  find 
that  Christ,  at  the  age  of  thirty,  was  washed  of  John 
at  Jordan;  and  'anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,'  and 
John  said,  'I  knew  him  not,  but  he  that  sent  me  to 
baptize,  said,  upon  whomsoever  thou  shalt  see  the 
spirit  descend  and  light  upon  him;  he  it  is  that  bap- 
tizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

I  suppose  jMr.  B.  will  hardly  say  that  while  Jesus 
stood  upon  the  bank  of  Jordan,  the  Spirit  immersed 
him;  (when  the  text  says,  "it  descended  upon  him 
like  a  dove.''  John  i,  32,  33;)  as  there  is  nothing 
said  here  about  a  wind^  or  sovnd,  filing  all  out  of 
doors.  Those  who  talk  so  much  of  'following  Christ 
down  to  Jordan,'  and  are  perpetually  teazing  the 
weak,  but  sincere  believer  in  Jesus,  about  being  im- 
mersed in  imitation  of  Christ's  example,  ought  to 
recollect  that  he  was  circumcised,  as  well  as  bap- 
tized, and  that  after  his  baptism,  he  fasted  forty 
days  and  nights,  and  had  a  severe  rencontre  with 
the  great  adversary  of  God  and  man,  before  he  en- 
tered upon  the  discharge  of  the  functions  of  his  high 
office.  They  should  recollect  also,  that,  he  regular- 
ly kept  the  Jewish  Passover,  and  his  disciples  also 
U6* 


176 

kept  it  with  him;  he  also  washed  their  feet,  and  said 
to  them,  "Do  to  one  another,  as  I  have  done  to  you." 
Those  who  would  receive  the  baptism  which  Christ 
received  from  John,  (even  if  this  were  possible,) 
would  need  re-baptizing,  in  order  to  be  initiated  into 
the  Christian  church;  for  we  have  the  authority 
of  St.  Paul,  Acts  xix,  and  of  that  distinguished  Bap- 
tist 'preacher,  Robert  Hall,  of  England,  for  saying, 
that  John's  was  not  the  Christian  baptism.  His 
words  are,  as  quoted  in  the  first  part  of  this  discus- 
sion, "710  rite  celebrated  at  that  time,  (i.  e.  during 
John's  ministry,)  is  entitled  to  a  place  among  Chris- 
tian SACRAMENTS,  siucc  they  did  not  commence 
with  the  Christian  dispensation."  Hall's  Works, 
vol.  1,  p.  372.  Now  if  our  Baptist  friends  will. in-' 
sist  that  they  must  go  to  the  water,  and  do  as  Jesus 
did,  (i.  e.  receive  John's  baptism,)  we  cannot  go  with 
them,  for  we  cannot  consent  to  throw  up  our  right 
to  an  interest  in  the  Christian  dispensation.  Hear 
the  words  of  our  Master,  Luke  vii,  28, — "Among 
those  that  are  born  of  women,  there  is  not  a  greater 
prophet  than  John  the  Baptist;  but  he  that  is  least 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  greater  than  Ae."  And 
Mr.  Hall  says,  that  "the  phrase  kingdom  oj  God  is 
constantly  used  to  denote  that  state  of  things  under 


177 

the    administration    of    the    Messiah."      See     as 
above. 

He  therefore  who  would  forsake  the  kingdom  of 
God,  or  Christian  church,  and  go  back  to  John 
at  Jordan,  under  the  fanciful  idea  of  following  Christ, 
might,  with  equal  propriety,  have  his  male  children 
circumcised,  at  eight  days  old.  and  constantly  keep 
the  Jewish  Passover;  for  he  could  plead  the  example 
of  Christ  in  honoring  these  institutions  also.  "I 
speak  as  unto  wise  men." 

But  I  shall  be  told  that  the  scriptures  say, — "And 
straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the 
heavens  opened."  Mark  i,  10.  It  is  said  in  Matt, 
iii,  16 — "And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  loent  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water."  In  both  these  places 
the  Greek  word  'apo'  is  used,  the  first  sense  of 
which  (according  to  Parkhurst's  Lexicon)  is  'from;' 
so  we  see  that  nothing  can  be  fairly  made  out  from 
his  case,  to  show  that  even  the  mcmner  in  which  he 
received  the  ordinance  was  by  plunging.  His  coming 
up,  and  going  up,  show  nothing  for  immersion;  be- 
cause they  imply  action,  whereas  in  immersion  the 
subject  is  always  passive. 

We  must  now  call  the  attention  of  the  candid 
reader  to  the  favorite  argument  of  our  differing  breth- 
ren, drawn  from  a  fanciful  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi, 


4, — "Therefore  we  are  buried  with  liiivi  by  bap- 
tism into  death,'' &c.,  andColoss.  ii,  12.  Mr.  B., 
(Ser.  p.  10,)  seems  to  consider  this  allusion  of  the 
apostle,  as  a  most  conclusive  argument  for  the  mode 
of  baptism  by  immersion.  He  says,  "I  pause  to  ad- 
mire the  wisdom  of  the  Most  High,  in  putting  it  into 
the  mind  of  his  inspired  servant,  to  describe  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism,  by  so  familiar  an  illusion.  Let 
the  learned,  my  brethren  dispute  about  the  meaning 
of  Greek  verbs  and  prepositions,  you  all  understand 
what  a  burial  is,  and  if  Paul  called  baptism  a  burial, 
you  will  easily  decide  whether  he  meant  sprinkling, 
pouring,  or  immersion.'''  Query — Did  any  of  Mr. 
B's  hearers  or  readers,  ever  witness  a  bvrial,  ivhere 
the  body  was  dipped  or  plunged  in  the  earth?  I 
dare  say  they  have  witnessed  many,  where  the  body 

had  THE  EARTH  SPRINKLED  OR  POURED  UPON  IT.     It 

is  easy  for  those  who  do  not  think  much,  to  be  led 
away  with  the  sound  of  a  word;  but  J  hope  better 
things  of  you,  intelligent  reader. 

There  are  several  serious  difficulties  which  lie 
against  this  fanciful  argument  for  immersion;  1st, 
Although  Mr.  B.  says  St.  Paul  'describes  it  by  an 
allusion,"  (rather  a  strange  method  of  description, 
by  the  way,   and  that  too,  in  a  matter  where  he  says, ' 


179 

"we  may  expect  to  find  the  word  of  God  very  ex- 
plicit upon  the  subject."  Ser.  p.  6,)  yet  in  all  the 
four  gospels,  in  all  that  John  the  Baptist,  and  Jesus 
Christ  ever  said  with  regard  to  baptism,  there  is  not 
one  solitary  intimation  that  the  ordinance  had  any 
reference  to  a  burial;  either  to  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  or  any  other.  Again,  in  all  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  all  that  they  said,  from  time 
to  time,  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  there  is  no  such 
allusion;  nor  is  there  in  the  Epistles,  except  in  the 
two  passages  above  referred  to.  2nd,  That  St.  Paul 
has  reference  to  the  mode  of  literal  baptism  in  these 
passages,  is  exceedingly  doubtful;  because  no  such  idea 
was  given  him  at  his  own  baptism,  by  Ananias,  as 
that  he  was  to  ^arise  and  be  baptized,  to  represent 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.''  On  the  con- 
trary, he  said,  "Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
AWAY  THY  si?fs,  Calling  on  the  name  of -the  Lord." 
He  was  taught  then  to  consider  baptism  as  repre- 
senting the  WASHING  away  of  sins,  and  not  to  con- 
sider it  as  representing  a  grave,  the  place  of  loath- 
someness artd  corruption. 

The  fine  idea  that  we  hear  so  often  advanced  about 
the  Hiquid  grave,^  the  ^expressive  rite,'  Hhe  watery 
tonih,^  &c.  is  a  modern  invention,  and  has  no  author- 


180 

ity  from  the  word  of  (Jod.  Wlio  can  see  any  resemb- 
lance between  a  man  wading  into  a  creek  or  river  up 
to  his  waist  or  arm-pits,  and  another  dipping  the  rest 
of  his  body  under  water,  and  the  laying  away  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  in  a  sepulchre,  above  ground,  hewn 
out  of  a  solid  rock,  there  to  remain  three  days? 
Jonah's  being  three  days  and  nights  in  the  belly  of 
the  fish,  was  the  sign  of  the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Christ;  hence  Jesus  told  the  Jews,  "there  shall  «o 
other  sign  be  given  you,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet 
Jonah;"  and  yet  our  Baptist  friends  will  have  it,  that 
baptism  was,  and  is,  the  sign  or  representation  of 
Chrises  burial  and  resurrection. 

But  reader,  their  practice  is  at  war  with  their  theo- 
ry; for  if,  as  they  say,  baptism  does  really  represent 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  then  they  should 
not  require  persons  to  be  baptized  before  they  admit 
them  to  the  Lord's  supper;  because  in  this  they  require 
them  to  shoiv  forth  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  before  they  allow  them  to  obey  the  command 
of  Jesus,  in  showing  forth  his  passion  and  death,  in 
the  sacred  supper.  They  thus  reverse  the  order  of 
those  important  facts,  and  show  the  Lord^s  resurrec- 
tion before  his  death.  I  have  to  urge  against  this 
interpretation;  Sd,  That  it  proves  too  much;  for  if, 


181 

'being  buried,'  in  the  passage,  alludes  to  the  mode  of 
baptism,  then  so  does  *being  planted,  or  grafted,  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death,'  allude  to  the  mode  of 
baptism;  for  the  subject  is  the  same  in  verses  five 
and  six  as  in  verse  four.  And  'being  crucified'  also 
must  refer  to  the  mode.  In  the  passage  in  Colos- 
sians,  the  'rising  with  him'  spoken  of,  is  said  to  be 
'through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God.'  We  can 
see  no  good  sense  in  which  it  can  be  said;  a  tnan 
rises  in  baptism  Hhrough  faith,'^ 

If  any  thing  in  these  passages  can  be  shown  to  al- 
lude to  the  mode  of  baptism,  then  imrtial  immersion^ 
as  'planting,'  or  using  the  sign  of  the  cross,  has  as 
much  evidence  in  their  favor  as  immersion.  In  con- 
clusion, we  are  of  opinion  that  these  passages  refer 
to  the  spiritual  baptism  spoken  of  in  the  word  of 
God,  1  Cor.  xii,  13, — 'For  by  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we'  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles-,"  and  we  have  seen,  that  the  'one  Spirit'  is 
administered,  by  pouring,  falling  upon,  8^'c.  The 
passage  may  be  considered,  as  referring  to  the 
mighty  energies  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  the 
believer  is  regenerated,  "crucified  with  Christ,'' 
"planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death;''  and  i^  baptism 
literally  is  referred  to  at  all,  it  is  only  as  the  instru- 


182 

mental  cause,  the  initiating  rite,  by  which  we  enter 
the  church,  where^hy  prof ession  we  are,  and  in  fact 
ought  to  be,  "dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 
God  through  Jesus  Christ  "  If  our  Baptist  friends 
will  insist  still,  that,  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion is  referred  to,  and  that  the  ordinance  is  intend- 
ed to  represent  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
I  have  two  questions  to  ask:  1st,  If  the  rite  was  in- 
tended to  represent  these  two  things,  how  did  it 
come  to  pass,  that  the  disciples  were  so  ignorant  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  resurrection  up  to  the  eve  of 
his  crucifixion,  that  ^'■They  wondered  what  the  ris- 
ing from  the  dead  should  mean?^''  2d.  If  this  ordi- 
nance has  been  instituted  to  represent  the  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  then  we  ask,  where  is  the 
Christian  rite,  that  is  the  emblem  of  moral  purity? 
Christianity  has  but  two  sacraments — baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper;  the  first,  emblematical  of  the 
*SpiritV  influences,  and  the  second  commemo- 
rative of  the  breaking  of  the  body,  and  the  shed- 
ding of  the  blood,  of  the  Son  of  God.  Blood  and 
WATER  came  forth  from  tlie  pierced  side  of  Jesus, 
emblematical  of  atonement  and  of  purity.  ^'•By 
water  we  a-re  jmrified,  and  pardoned  by  his  blood.^^ 
"There    are    three    that    bear    witness    in   earth; 


183 

earth;  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood;  and  these 
three  agree  in  owe;"  1st  John  v,  8.  I  consider  this 
text  as  referring  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  water 
of  baptism,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  all  agreeing  io 
one  mode  of  administration;  and  that  is  sprinkling 
or  pouring. 

Mr.  B.  says,  Serm.  page  27,  "Baptism  does  not 
necessarily  include  the  idea  of  water,  at  all.  We 
might  baptize  with  meal,  with  oil,  with  honey,  with 
Sand;  the  question  is,  what  action  constitutes  bap^- 
tism?''  Query — could  a  man  be  immersed  in  sand? 
sand  or  meal  might  be  poured  or  sprinkled  on  the 
subject,  but  the  ^action,''  as  he  calls  it  could  never 
be  dipping  or  plunging.  The  word  'baptizo,'  ijbs  U 
occurs  in  Mark  vii,  4,  5,  with  regard  to  the  wash- 
ing of  hands,  cups,  tables,  &c.  cannot  be  interpreted 
as  signifying  the  action  of  dipping,  only:  for  though 
their  hands  and  cups  might  have  been  dipped,  yet 
surely  they  did  not  wash  or  baptize  their  ^brazen 
vessels j'*  and  Hables^^  or  'couches,'  by  immersion. 

We  now  notice  the  argument  from  antiquity.  Mr. 

B.  thinks  that  the  practice   of  the  ^ancient  church^ 

shows   the    'pattern'   of    baptism,   and   he    quotes 

Mosheim  and  Robinson,  Ser.  p.  41,  to  prove  that 

"the  patt&rn  was  by  immersion.  That  immersion  was 
17 


184 

practised  in  the  second  century,  and  for  some  time 
subsequent,  we  firmly  believe.  The  Baptist  argu- 
ment OQ  this  point  runs  thus:  "The  Baptists  practice  • 
immersion,  and  so  did  the  ancient  church;  and,  there- 
fore, so  did  John  the  Baptist  and  the  apostles.''  This 
to  them  is  demonstration.  But  stop,  reader,  we 
must  look  a  little  at  this  argument.  The  primitive 
church,  in  this  mode  of  arguing,  is  made  the  con- 
necting link  between  the  New  Testament  times,  and 
our  own.  Let  us  now  try  another  argument.  In 
the  primitive  church,  the  people  were  immersed 
naked,  both  men  and  women;  therefore  John,  and 
the  apostles,  immersed  people  naked;  therefore  the 
Baptists  ought  to  immerse  people  naked.  Again: 
The  primitive  church  gave  milk  and  honey  to  the 
baptized,  and  used  unction,  so  did  John  the  Baptist 
and  the  apostles,  so  ought  the  Baptists.  Again:  The 
primitive  church  baptized  infants,  so  did  John,  and 
the  apostles,  so  ought  the  Baptists.  If  our  friends 
should  object  to  my  insisting  on  the  argument  being 
thus  pushed  to  its  consequences,  I  must  contend  if 
the  pattern  is  to  be  found  in  the  second  century, 
they  must  not  alter  that  pattern:  for  Mr.  B.  says, 
Serm.  page  6,  ^^  Unless  the  plan  laid  down  in  the 
PATTERN  is  implicitly  pursued,  the  thing  required 


185 

is  not  performed  at  all.^^  I  will  prove  by  Mr.  B's 
witness,  (and  he  will  tell  the  truth  in  this  matter  no 
doubt,  as  he  is^a  Baptist,)  that  the  ancients  gave  the 
ordinance,  the  subjects  being  in  a  state  of  nudity. 
"The  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked.  There 
is  no  ancient  historical  fact  better  authenticated 
than  this.''  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  page 
8d.  Wall  says,  "The  ancient  Christians,  when  they 
were  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  baptized 
naked;  whether  they  were  men,  women,  or  children. 
They  thought  it  better  represented  the  putting  off 
the  old  man,  and  also  the  nakedness  of  Christ  on  the 
cross.  Moreover,  as  baptism  is  a  washing,  they 
judged  that  it  should  be  the  washing  of  the  body, 
not  of  the  clothes.^''  Wall,  chap,  xv,  part  2.  So 
they  undei'stood  the  'pattern.  If  it  were  necessary, 
we  could  produce  an  abundance  of  testimony  to  con- 
firm this  point.  And  I  leave  it  to  the. intelligent 
reader  to  judge,  whether  they  received  this  pattern 
^Hn  the  mount,''^ — or  whether  it  was  the  offspring  of 
superstition.  "Religion,  like  the  Saviour,  is  often 
placed  between  two  thieves;  Superstition  on  the 
right  hand,  and  Atheis3i  on  the  left,  the  one  makes 
a  puppet  of  her,  sets  her  out  in  gaudy  accoutre- 
iDents,  and   bedaubs  her  native  beauty  with  paint, 


tm 

Sind  presents  lier  not  in  her  matron-like  dress;  the 
Atheist  strips  her  naked  of  her  vestments,  and  ex- 
poses her  to  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  the  world. 
But  let  these  men  esteem  her  as  they  list,  she  is 
nevertheless  the  fair  daughter  of  the  Almighty,  the 
Queen  of  Heaven,  and  beauty  of  the  whole  earth." 
And  it  is  known  to  all  that  read,  and  think,  that 
human  nature  has  ahuays  been  prone  to  add  to  the 
SIMPLE  CEREMONIES  of  Christianity.  Imposing  or- 
dinances are  no  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  a  relig- 
ion^  under  the  gospel,  where  "the  true  worship- 
pers worship  the  Father  in  spirit  an^  in  truth." 

The  Baptists  very  often  are  found  vaunting  about 
the  uniformity  of  their  views  and  practice;  they  will 
tell  you  that  they  have  always  rejected  "infant  bap- 
tism"— and  always  practiced  immersion.  If  the 
reader  will  attend,  I  will  give  him  a  fact  or  two  from 
a  Baptist  writer  that  will  prove  a  small  drawback 
upon  these  high  pretensions.  In  Benedict's  History 
of  the  Baptists,  vol.  i.  pages  150,  151, 152,  it  is  said, 
^'The  American  Mennonites,  have  adopted  pourings 
instead  of  immersion,  and  it  is  probable  that  viany, 
and  I  know  not  but  most  of  the  European  Mennon- 
ites have  done  the  same."  The  reader  will  bear  in 
mind  that  these  Baptists  have  been  a  numerous  sect. 


\b1 

in  the  Netherlands,  Upper  Saxony,  Prussia,  Russia, 
Poland,  France,  &c.  dec.  and  their  leader,  or  founder, 
Menno,  who  died  in  1561, — asserted  that  dipping 
was  the  onli/  baptism,  acceptable  to  God.''  "The 
Dutch  Baptists  (says  Benedict)  held  to  dipping  be- 
lievers at  first;  they  still  retain  the  subjects  of  the 
ordinance,  but  by  a  surprising  change,  some,  I  know 
not  how  many,  have  departed  from  the  apostolic 
mode."  It  is  surely  very  surprising  that  so  many 
Baptists  should  depart  from  the  apostolic  pattern,  if 
cold  bathing  is  as  convenient,  pleasant,  and  healthy 
as  Mr.  Broaddus  seems  to  think  it,  Serm.  p.  40,  and 
Strict,  p.  22,  he  says,  "It  often  proves  beneficial  to 
health,''  &lc.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  God  has 
said,  all  men,  who  are  to  be  baptized,  must  be  im- 
mersed— then  there  should  be  no  demurring^  and 
although  Mr.  B.  has  again  and  again  begged  the 
question,  without  j)roving  the  position,  we  are  still  of 
the  opinion  that  those  Baptists  who  have  given  up 
immersion;  and  adopted  pouring,  have  acted  wisely. 
VVe  must  now  say  a  word  on  the  question  of  the 
validity  oi  ti\e  ordinance,  as  administered  by  those 
who  have  never  been  immersed,  Notliing  is  more 
common,  than  for  our   differing  brethren  to  object, 

vf\\en  we  administer  the  rite  bv  immersion.     We  do 

17* 


jiof  Consider  it  'the  most  excellent  waiji  but  if  any 
prefer  that  mode,  and  we  cannot  convince  them  that 
pouring  is  the  better  mode,  we  immerse  them;  and 
f^onsider  that  we  have  given  as  valid  baptism^  as 
Elder  B.  could  give.  1  have  sometimes  asked  our 
Baptist  friends,  if  the  vaUdity  of  the  ordinance  rests 
upon  the  quahfications  of  the  administrator,  or 
otherwise;  but  I  have  not  found  them  at  all  agreed 
in  opinion  on  that  point.  If  the  reader  will  consult 
Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  vol.  i,  page  475, 
he  will  discover,  that,  the  first  Baptist  church  in 
this  country  was  founded  or  planted  by  Roger  Wii* 
liams,  in  the  year  1639,  in  Providence,  Rhode 
Island.  Mr.  Benedict  gives  the  following  account 
6f  this  matter:  "Being  settled  in  this  place,  which 
from  the  kindness  of  God  to  them,  they  called  Prov- 
ISEnce,  Mr.  Williams  and  those  with  him,  consid- 
ered the  importance  of  gospel  union,  and  were  de- 
sirous of  forming  themselves  into  a  church,  but  met 
with  a  considerable  obstruction;  they  were  con- 
vinced of  the  nature  and  design  of  believers'  baptism, 
by  immersion;  but,  from  a  variety  of  circumstances, 
had  hitherto  been  prevented  from  submission.  To 
obtain  a  suitable  administrator,  was  a  matter  of  con- 
sequence: at  length,  the  candidates  for  communion 
nominated  and  appointed  Mr.   Ezekiel  Holliman,  a 


189 

man  of  gifts  and  piety,  to  baptize  Mr.  Williams;  and 
who,  in  return,  baptized  Mr.  Holliman,  and  the  other 
ten."  Here  is  the  origin  of  the  Baptists  in  these 
United  States;  and  here  was  a  church,  that  was  no 
church  at  all,  according  to  the  opinion  of  many  of 
the  Baptists.  Mr.  Holliman  did  not  pretend  to  be 
either  a  minister  or  a  baptized  believer,  but  he  was 
appointed  to  give  believers^  baptism  to  Mr.  Williams, 
and  then  Mr.  W.  gave  believers'  baptism  to  him, 
and  the  other  ten. 

The  intelligent  reader  may  see  with  what  con- 
sistency, the  Baptists  attempt  to  invalidate  the  ordi- 
nance as  administered  by  us,  even  when  immersion 
is  the  mode,  although  they  may  attempt  to  disguise 
it,  yet  there  are  several  circumstances,  which  go  to 
show  that  they  consider  the  ordinance  given  by 
any  but  a  Baptist  preacher  as  being  no  baptism,  at 
all. 

1st.  They  will  not  admit  any  such  to  the  Lord's 
table  among  them. 

2d.  If  any  such  offer  to  join  their  church;  they 
do  not  receive  them  unless  they  re-baptize  them; 
and 

3d.  If  a  Methodist  minister,  gives  the  ordinance 
by  immersion,  they  generally  hear  of  the  murmur- 


190 

ings  of  the  Baptists,  'You  have  no  right  to  give  it,' 
say  they,  ^you  don't  believe  in  it,''  &lc.  But  here  we 
have  a  Baptist  church,  without  behevers'  baptism; 
and  who  knows  how  many  of  tlie  present  race  of 
Baptist  preachers  descended  from  that  first  church. 

Query,  are  their  ministrations  more  valid  than 
Mr.  Hollimans,  if  they  happen  to  be  in  this  branch 
of  the  succession,  as  he  could  give  Mr.  Williams 
nothing  that  he  did  not  himself  possess,  and  as  he 
(Mr.  W.)  had  received  no  valid  baptism,  he  could 
give  none  to  the  rest. 

This  they  supposed  was  the  pattern,  and  they 
practiced  the  ^laying  on  of  hands''  in  that  church 
after  baptism, as  did  many  others  in  the  early  part  of 
their  history  in  this  country.  Now  it  was  hardly 
very  modest  in  Mr.  Benedict,  in  view  of  this  case, 
in  his  own  church  to  attempt  to  ridicule  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Catholics  in  appointing  laymen  to  admin- 
ister baptism  to  children,  or  sick  people  in  cases  of 
emergency. 

I  have  not  given  this  case  with  any  design  to  in- 
validate the  ordinance  as  practised  by  the  Baptists. 
But  to  let  them  and  the  public  know,  that  their  boast- 
ing about  the  superiority  of  the  ordinance  as  admin- 
istered by  themj  and  the  idea  they  put  forth   about 


191 

the  identity  of  their  doings,  in  a  literal  conformity 
to  all  ?Ae  CIRCUMSTANCES  of  a  'positive  institute,' 
are  frivolous  and  vain. 

While  they  attempt  to  unchurch  their  neighbors, 
whose  claim  to  piety  is  as  good  as  their  own;  by 
representing  them  as  the  'disobedient  children'  of 
God,  and  saying  in  their  confession  of  faith,  chap, 
xxvii,  p.  29,  Alexandria  edition,  1833:  "A  visible, 
or  gospel  church,  consists  of  those  who  have  believ- 
ed, been  baptized  by  immersion,  given  themselves 
to  the  Lord,  and  to  each  other,  as  required  in  the 
divine  word."  They  ought  not  to  complain  if  their 
errors  and  bigotry,  at  least,  are  'handled  without 
gloves.' 

We  have  shown,  we  think,  m  the  course  of  this 
argument,  on  the  MODE  of  baptism:  "1st.  That  'no 
law  of  baptism''  can  be  found  in  the  Greek  word 
"baptizo,"  and  that  the  opinion  of  Mr.  B.  and  Dr. 
Carson  about  its  meaning  immersion  only,  is  contra- 
dicted by  critics  and  lexicographers;  by  Professor 
Stuart,  Mr.  Wesley,  and  Dr.  Clarke;  and  what  is  of 
more  weight  still,  by  John  the  Baptist,  by  Jesus 
Christ,  by  St.  Peter,  and  by  St.  Paul,  one  of  the  best 
scholars  of  his  time.     Does  not  the   candid    reader 


192 

think  that  St.  Paul  understood  Greek  as  well  as  the 
corrupt  Greek  church?     We  have  shown, 

2d.  That  Mr.  B.  has  miserably  abused  his  Pe- 
DOBAPTisT  witnesses;  and  that  he  has  more  than  in- 
sinuated that  king  James,  the  bishops  and  translat« 
ors  formed  a  conspiracy  against  the  truth,  in  giving 
the  world  the  common  version  of  the  scriptures, 
without  translating  the  Greek  word,  so  as  to  mean 
im7nersion  only.  We  have  vindicated  the  translat- 
ors, and  shown  that  they  followed  the  common  cus- 
tom,  pursued  by  Luther,  the  Latin  and  French 
translators,  and  also  by  Mr.  George  Campbell. 
And  in  this  they  followed  the  Spirit  of  God,  shown 
in  the  case  of  the  Lord's  supper,  where  the  Hebrew 
word  "/)asc^a"  is  retained  by  the  inspired  writers 
of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  Greek  word  ^^pascha.^^ 
We  have  shown, 

3d.  That  if  the  meaning  of  ^^e  word  used  in  apos- 
itive  institute,  is  to  furnish  the  law  and  fix  all  the 
circumstances,  of  its  observances,  then,  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  we 
ought  to  eat  a  full  meal,  for  the  word  used  in  1  Cor. 
xi,  20,  to  designate  that  ordinance,  is  '■'•deipnon'''  sup- 
per, which,  among  the  Greeks,  the  learned  tell  us, 
was  the  word  used,  not  only  for  a/wZ/  meal,  but  for , 


193 

the  principal  meal.  Yet  our  Baptist  brethren  think 
they  have  taken  the  sacrament  of  the  supper, 
really  and  fully,  when  they  have  taken  a  little  piece 
of  bread,  and  have  sipped  of  wine.      Why  cannot 

BAPTISM    be    performed  WITH    A    LITTLE    WATER?!! 

"Judge  ye  what  I  say."  In  this  part  of  the  argu- 
ment I  have  shown  also,  the  futihty  of  Mr.  B's  fan- 
ciful notion  about  positive  institutes. 

4th.  That  the  divers  baptisms  among  the  Jews, 
appointed  of  God,  were  performed  by  ^sprinkling  the 
unclean,^  and  that  applying  water  for  purification 
where  an  administrator  and  a  subject  were  found, 
was  never  by  immersion. 

5th.  That  it  is  highly  improbable  that  John  could 
have  baptized  by  immersion,  the  hundreds  of  thous- 
ands, that  came  to  his  baptism,  and  that  the  Jordan 
and  the  ^much  water''  were  wanted  for  purposes  other 
than  dippino^. 

6th.  That  the  baptism  which  took  place  in  pri- 
vate houses,  and  in  the  prison,  and  in  the  temple,  can- 
not be  made  by  any  fair  dealing,  to  favor  immers- 
ion, but  to  the  contrary.  And  I  am  strengthened  in 
this  view  by  what  Mr.  Benedict  says  about  the  Men- 
nonites,  learning  to  baptize  by  pouring,  "where  they 
made  proselytes  in  prison. ^"^     Query — Where  were 


194 

the  Hanks,''  ^baths'*  and  'hogsheads,'  for  immersion, 
which  abounded  so  much  in  the  days  of  the  apostles; 
had  modern  prisons  none  of  thenil 

7th.  We  have  shown  that  baptism  of  the  spirit 
WAS  BY  "pouring,"  "FALLING  UPON,"  &;c.,  and  that 
Mr.  B.  in  order  to  evade  this  argument,  has  run  into 
the  egregious  mistake  of  making  "the  rushing  wind" 
and  "sound"  or  echo,  that  filled  the  house,  to  be  the 
Spirit  of  God,  "overwhelming  the  disciples."  And 
we  have  shown  also,  that  when  it  came  down  upon 
Cornelius  and  his  company,  it  was  shed  forth,  with- 
out an  accompanying  wind  or  sound.  And  that  on 
Christ  it  came  descending  'ZiAre  a  dove.^ 

8th.  We  have  shown  also,  that  in  every  case  of 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  the  ordin- 
ance was  given  without  delay,  whether  it  were  night 
or  day;  and  that  there  is  a  total  absence  of  evidence 
that  any  person  ever  moved  or  walked   so  much   as 

ONE  HUNDRED  YARDS  FROM  THE  PLACE  OF  PREACH- 
ING, IN  ORDER  TO  RECEIVE  THE  ORDINANCE  OF  BAP.- 

TisM.  Let  the  reader  compare  this  with  what  takes 
place  in  modern  times.  Who  ever  in  our  day,  hears 
of  a  baptism  by  immersion,  without  hearing  also, 
that  Elder  A.  B.  or  G.  went  from  such  a  meeting- 
house to  such  a  creek,  run  or   river,  to  administeir 


195 

baptism  to  C.  D.  or  F.  There  is  no  such  thing  in 
the  New  Testament.  John  was  at  Jordan^  and 
Enon^  and  "in  the  wilderness,"  but  these  were 
his  places  for  preaching.  And  in  the  same  chapel 
where  he  preached,  there  he  gave  the  ordinance. 

9th.  We  have  shown  that  nothing  can  be  deter- 
mined with  certainty,  from  Romans  and  Colossians, 
with  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  from  the  allus- 
ion of  the  apostle  to  burying.  As  the  text  equally 
refers  to  ^planting^  and  '■crucifixion,''  as  to  ^burying,'' 
and  the  text  has  a  higher,  and  more  important  al- 
lusion. And  that  a  burial  is  never  performed  by 
dipping  or  plunging,  but  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
the  dust  upon  the  coffin.  And  that  the  Baptists 
blunder  most  wretchedly  when  they  make  baptism 
represent  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
instead  of  the  washing  away  of  moral  impurity,  by 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire.  Thus  in 
order  to  support  a  theory  they  wrest  one  of  the 
Christian  sacraments  from  its  proper  place,  and 
make  it  the  representative  of  that,  to  which  the 
great  law  giver  never  appointed  it.  With  all  their 
clamor  about  'the  liquid  grave,'  and  'the  significant 
rite,'  many  of  them  have   yet  to  learn,  the  nature 

and  MEANING  OF  Christian  baptism. 
18 


196 


1 


10th.  We  have  shown  that  the  idea  of  following 
Christ  in  John's  baptism  is  more  specious  than  scrip- 
tural, as  Christ's  baptism  was  peculiar  and  as  John 
did  not  give  Christian  baptism  to  his  followers; 
being  the  minister  of  an  inferior  dispensation. 

11th.  We  have  shown,  that  if  the  Baptists  will 
insist  on  deriving  the  evidence  of  immersion  from 
the  ancient  church  in  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
centuries,  and  will  attempt  to  prove  thereby  that 
immersion  was  the  'apostolic  pattern;'  then  they 
must  take  the  consequences,  and  believe  that  the 
apostles,  the  ministers  of  a  religion  scrupulously 
modest,  baptized  men  and  women  'naked  as  Adam 
and  Eve,'  before  they  fell,  and  that  they  used  salt, 
milk  and  honey,  oil,  immersion  three  times,  white 
garments  for  the  baptized,  &c.  &c.  As  this  was  the 
pattern  of  the  ancient  church,  according  to  Wall, 
Robinson,  and  others.  The  practice  of  immersing 
people  with  their  clothes  on  is  a  modern  invention, 
about  as  far  from  the  'pattern  of  the  ancient  church^ 
as  is  our  mode  by  pouring.  For  if  baptism  is  a 
washing,  as  the  ancients  considered  it,  then  we 
should  consider  it  rather  a  novel,  senseless  thing  to 
see  a  man  attempting  to  wash  his  feet  with  his  shoes 
and  stockings  on,  or  his  hands  with   his  gloves  on.. 


197 

They  built  baptistries  to  be  sure,  and  endeavored  to 
work  by  this  pattern;  but  when  they  found  that  this 
child  of  superstition  could  not  be  maintained  with- 
out scandalous  occurrences  taking  place  in  them, 
(see  Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  105,)  the  true  friends  of 
religion  laid  aside  the  practice  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion upon  naked  subjects;  as  the  Mennonites 
have  the  practice  of  dipping  altogether.  And  that 
the  administration  of  the  ordinance  among  our  Bap- 
tist friends  now  is  attended  with  serious  difficulties, 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  we  hear  more  said 
about  '•Haking  up  the  cross'''  in  baptis3i,  than  in 
taking  up  all  other  crosses;  and  we  know  that  great 
alarm,  and  perturbation  of  spirit,  often  accompanies 
the  administration  in  the  case  of  females  especially; 
which  renders  devotional  feelings  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, at  least  for  the  moment.  We  speak  not  from 
theory,  but  from  the  undoubted  testimony  of  the 
parties  concerned. 

In  conclusion,  we  remark,  that  as  Christ  in  apply- 
ing water  to  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  gave  Peter  to 
understand  that  this  partial  application  of  the  water 
INDICATED  an  INTEREST  in  the  Saviour,  so  we  con- 
clude, that  the  application  of  water  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  it  on  the  head,  (a.  much  more  vital,  and 


198 

jioble  part  than  the  feet,)  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  answers  all  the 
purposes  of  the  ordinance,  and  IS  VALID  CHRIS- 
TIAN BAPTISM.  "I  speak  as  unto  wise  men, 
judge  ye  what  I  say." 


A   FURTHER    APPEAL, 

BY  H.  SLICER, 

IN  REPLY   TO  THE    TWENTY-ONE   LETTERS 

ADDRESSED  TO  HIM  BY 

MR.    BROADDUS. 


"Speaking  the  truth  in  love."'— St.  Paul. 

"Truth,  like  light,  always  travels  in  straight  lines." — Lacon. 

Candid  reader!  to  you  and  not  to  Mr.  B.,  shall  I 
address  myself  in  the  review  of  these  letters.  I 
have  the  consolation  to  know,  that,  although  the 
advocate  of  Pedobaptist  views  may  be  weak,  the  cause 
is  strong,  and  rests  not  upon  the  talents,  or  inge- 
nuity of  any  man,  however  skilled  in  argument. 

It  would  be  as  fair  to  infer  the  incorrectness  of 
the  views  of  Baptists  from  the  evil  practices,  and 
visionary  theories  of  Muntzer  and  the  German  Ana- 
baptists, as  for  Mr.  B.  to  attempt  so  far,  to  connect 

me  with   the  Pedobaptist  views,  as   to   infer  their 

18* 


200 

weakness,  and  unsoundness,  from  what  he  is  pleased 
to  consider  my  misrepresentations  of  his  arguments, 
For  the  intelhgent  reader  will  perceive,  that  the  gen- 
tleman arrogates  to  himself  and  his  views,  not  only 
all  the  argument,  but  all  the  scripture  authorities 
also;  hear  him,  page  13 — "i  do  not  blame  you,  sir^ 
for  not  producing  any  argument  in  favor  of  your  theory; 
for  arguments  there  are  none,  in  the  ivide  compass  of 
creation,  to  prove  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of  gos- 
pel baptism,'*''  This  is  only  one  of  many  broad 
declarations,  unsupported  by  proof,  contained  in  his 
letters.  The  reader  will  perceive,  from  the  above 
quotation,  how  little  hope  is  to  be  entertained  of 
making  any  impression  upon  men,  who  claim  to 
have  in  possession  all  the  argument  in  "^/te  wide 
compass  of  creation'''^  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
baptism. 

What  I  have  written  in  the  following  pages,  is 
designed  for  those  who  have  intelligence,  and  can- 
dor, sufficient  at  least  to  admit,  that  they  are  not  too 
wise  to  learn,  or  too  knowing  to  be  taught  some- 
thing more,  on  the  subject  of  this  solemn  and  im- 
portant ordinance, — and  who  will  weigh  in  the  bal- 
ances of  impartial  judgment,  what  may  be  advanced, 
convinced  that  the  cause  of  truth  can  never  suffer  . 
by  investigation. 


201 

Some  of  these  letters  I  shall  notice;  others  I  shall 
barely  allude  to,  as  I  have  answered  the  points  con- 
tained in  them  at  length,  in  the  first  'Appeal' — and 
I  cannot  consent  to  waste  either  my  own  time,  or 
the  reader's,  in  repeating  over  those  parts  of  my  ar- 
gument which  Mr.  B.  has  not  seen  fit  to  attempt  to 
answer.  It  was  my  aim,  in  the  first  reply  to  him, 
to  condense  the  matter  as  much  as  possible;  this  I 
shall  still  keep  in  view,  convinced  that  the  strength 
of  an  argument  does  not  consist  in  the  use  of  many 
words,  but  in  'words  fitly  spoken.' 

Mr.  Broaddus  sets  out  by  professing  to  have  no 
other  object  in  view,  "than  to  maintain  the  purity 
of  our  Lord's  institutions,"  and  yet  it  is  manifest 
in  his  'note  to  the  reader,'  and  throughout  his 
twenty-one  letters,  that  the  vindication  of  his  own 
reputation,  which  he  considered  implicated,  gave 
him  more  concern  than  any  thing  else  involved  in 
the  controversy;  and  he  has  fallen  upon  the  strange 
expedient  of  proving  himself  innocent  of  mutilat- 
ing, by  an  attempt  to  prove  me  guilty;  with  how 
much  success,  the  candid  reader  will  be  able  to 
discern. 

In  his  first  letter,  page  5,  he  acknowledges  that  I 
had  offered  "to  meet  any  minister,  or  layman,  in 


202 

the  bounds  of  my  district,"  and  yet,  although  he  j 
was  fairly  included  in  the  offer,  he  says  "he  had  re- 
ceived no  offer  from  me." 

Then,  fearing,  I  suppose,  that  his  language  was 
somewhat  contradictory,  he  adds — "jBz/f  /  will  be 
candid  enough  to  acknowledge^  that  if  you  had  formally 
challenged  me  to  an  oral  discussion,  I  should  have  de- 
clined it  for  several  reasons.'^''  He  then  gives  three 
reasons,  which  may  have  satisfied  that  gentleman's 
understanding  and  conscience,  but  the  flimsy  charac- 
ter of  which,  I  doubt  not,  the  discerning  public  will 
discover.  1  will  here  set  down  his  reasons.  He  says: 
"/n  the  first  place,  common  fame  had  informed  me,  that, 
you  were  naturally  of  a  temperament,  which  must  render 
a  debate  with  you,  very  disagreeable  to  a  man  of  ordinaiy 
sensibility.''''  I  had  previously  learned,  indeed,  that 
the  gentleman  had  given  the  above  reason,  to  some 
person  or  persons  privately,  but  I  could  not  fully 
credit  it,  at  the  time.  I  thought,  however,  if  that 
was  his  private  reason,  he  would  hardly  so  far  for- 
get himself,  as  to  put  it  in  print;  thus  publicly  sin- 
ning against  the  law  of  "that  charity  which  cover- 
eth  a  multitude  of  sins;''  ^Halting  up  a  reproach 
against  his  neighbor,"  even  though  ^^common  fame''' 
might  have  laid  it  down  at  his  feet.     ^^  Common 


203 

fame'''  once  said  of  H131  that  was  pure  and  spot- 
less— "/fe  hath  a  devil,  and  is  mad,  xchy  hear  ye 
him''' — "Ae  stirreth  up  the  people^'' — "Ae  speaketh 
blasphemies,'^''  &c.  It  is  enough  for  the  servant, 
that  he  fare  as  his  Lord,  As  Mr.  B.  would  have  it 
understood,  that,  he  is  conversant  with  that  book, 
that  gives  ^^ correction  in  righteousness,''^  he  will, 
perhaps,  upon  reflection,  see  his  error — and  may, 
perchance,  perceive  that  it  is  hardly  modest  to  talk 
of  the  temperament  of  others,  while  his  letters  give 
such  fearful  evidence,  of  a  mixture  of  sanguine  and 
choleric  in  his  own.  If  he  will  look  at  the  'Course 
of  Time,  b.  viii,'  he  may  possibly  learn  a  lesson 
from  the  Christian  poet,  that  will  be  of  service  to 
him  in  future.  Of  "common  fame,''  Pollok  says: 
'She  was  so  infamous  for  lies, 


That  he,  who  of  her  sayings,  on  his  creed, 
The  fewest  entered,  was  deemed  wisest  man." 

Secondly;  (Mr.  B.  says,)  "J  doubted  whether  I 
should  he  able,  amidst  the  exciting  circumstances  of  a 
public  debate,  to  present  my  own  views  of  the  subject  in  a 
proper  spirit.''^  So  it  seems  he  was  afraid  of  him- 
self, as  well  as  of  me.  As  he  has  thus  referred  to 
himself,  I  may  be  permitted  to  close  this  point,  by 
saying,  he  thought,  no  doubt,  a  spark  of  my  fire 
might  possibly  fall  into  his  tinder-box,  and  that  the 


204 

effect  might  be  disastrous  to  his  own  cause.  'Pru- 
dence is  the  better  part  of  valor;'  and  he  that  knows 
he  carries  a  powder  magazine  about  him,  does  well 
to  keep  at  a  respectful  distance  from  sparks.  So 
much  for  his  second  reason. 

Thirdly — he  was  afraid  to  trust  the  people  with 
an  oral  argument,  thinking  they  would  not  be  able 
to  judge  of  its  strength.  In  this,  at  least,  we  should 
have  been  equal,  as  they  could  have  judged  of  the 
argument,  from  his  lips,  as  well  as  from  mine, 

I  regret  the  necessity  of  noticing  these  things, 
rather  foreign  from  the  merits  of  the  controversy; 
as  they  may  be  deemed  somewhat  personal  in  their 
nature. 

The  attempt  Mr.  B.  makes,  in  his  first  letter,  to 
show  that  the  passage  in  the  19th  ch.  of  Acts,  does 
not  furnish  evidence  that  Johi's  baptism  differed 
from  Christian  baptism,  is  truly  a  lame  attempt. 
How  changeable  are  the  views  of  those  who  con- 
tend for  immersion  as  the  exclusive  mode.  The  old 
Anabaptists  used  to  quote  this  passage  to  sustain 
them  in  re-baptizing.  But  now  Mr.  B.  seems  to 
suspect  that  possibly  they  were  not  re-baptized  at 
all,      He   says — "Many   eminent   men   have    very 


205 

plausibly  contended,  that,  Paul  did  not  re-baptize 
them." 

"Plausible,"  as  their  views  are  in  his  judgment, 
he  is  not  able  to  make  up  his  mind  yet,  to  contra- 
dict the  plain  narrative  of  St.  Luke,  but  supposes, 
without  any  shadow  of  evidence  to  support  him, 
that  there  was  some  defect  in  the  baptism  which  the 
twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus  had  received,  although 
John's  baptism  itself  was  not  defective.  He  says 
that  "various  reasons  might  be  assigned  for  their  being 
rt-baptized,  without,  in  the  smallest  degree,  discrediting 
John^s  as  Christian  baptism.''^  But  the  h'arious  reasons'' 
turn  out  to  be  one  only,  and  that  so  meagre,  as  to 
be  unsupported  by  any  evidence — merely  a  creation 
of  Mr.  B's  own  imagination!  First,  he  has  to  sup- 
pose, that  those  persons  were  baptized  by  some  of 
John's  disciples;  secondly,  that  those  disciples  of 
John,  had  not  heard  of  the  recent  commission  given 
to  the  disciples  of  Christ;  and  thirdly,  that  the 
twelve,  at  Ephesus,  were  baptized  with  a  defective 
baptism,  being  taught  to  believe  on  a  Saviour  yet  to 
come. 

Now,  candid  reader,  all  this  in  Mr.  B.  is  perfectly 
gratuitous,  for  there  is  not  a  word  of  it  in  the  chap- 
ter.    He  might  become  a  believer  in  infant  baptism 


206 

if  it  would  suit  him,  by  a  much  smaller  exercise  of 
his  guessing  capacity.  For  instance,  in  the  case  of 
the  children  mentioned  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke,  who  were  taken  in  the  Saviour's  arms,  if  he 
would  only  be  willing  to  suppose  one  thing,  instead 
of  three,  and  say  'possibly'  they  were  baptized,  as 
well  as  blessed,  then  we  should  have  him  an  advo- 
cate for  infant  baptism.  The  intelligent  reader  will 
perceive  how  convenient  a  thing,  our  opponents 
sometimes  find  an  inference  to  be,  in  helping  them 
out  of  a  difficulty. 

On  page  8,  Mr.  B.  makes  another  effort  to  prove 
that  Hhere  never  was  a  visible  church  of  Christ  in  exist- 
ence, until  he  came  and  made  arrangements  himself,  for 
discerning,  hy  means  of  ordinances,  between  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked.''''  Here,  gentle  reader,  is  a  new  way 
of  discerning  "between  the  precious  and  the  vile." 
^'Ordinances!" — I  suppose  he  means  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper!!  Was  there  ever  a  case  known 
since  the  opening  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  in 
which,  by  means  of  these  ordinances,  it  was  discern- 
ed that  an  individual  was  an  unworthy  member  of 
the  church  of  Christ?  Did  ever  the  ordinances 
distinguish,  in  the  Baptist  church,  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked?     Mr.  B.  says  in  his  Dia- 


207 

logue,  page  117,  that  "Elder  G.  and  all  his  churches 
have  been  excluded  from  the  Baptist  denomination, 
in  consequence  of  his  immorality.''^  Was  this  immorality 
discerned  hy  means  of  ordinances'?  On  the  same  page 
he  gives  us  the  true  mode  of  discerning,  where  he 
speaks  of  an  influential  "individual,  ichose  conduct  has 
proved  him  to  be  an  unworthy  member  of  the  church^ 
So,  after  all,  it  seems  that  the  Baptists  judge  of  people, 
not  by  the  ^ordinances,''  but  by  Hheir  conduct;^  just  as 
the  apostles  judged  of  Judas,  Demas,  Simon  the  sor- 
cerer, and  the  incestuous  Corinthian;  and  just  as  the 
priests  and  ministers  did  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation. Mr.  B.  says,  page  8,  "No  rules  were  pre- 
scribed, under  the  former  dispensation,  by  which  to 
separate  the  (wicked)  from  the  privileges  of  those 
that  were  worthy."  We  will  appeal  from  this  state- 
ment "to  the  law,  and  the  testimony,"  Ex.  xii, 
15 — *^For  whosoever  eateth  leavened  bread,  from  the  first 
day,  until  the  seventh  day,  that  soid  shall  be'  cut  off  from 
Israel."  Num.  ix,  13 — "But  the  man  that  is  clean, 
&c.  and  forbeareth  to  keep  the  passover,  even  the  same 
soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people — that  man  shall  bear 
his  sin." 

See  Lev.  xxiv,  10  to  23,  and  Deut.  xxix,  21. — 
These  are  a  few  of  the   many  passages,  which  go 

to  show  that   the   church,  under  the  former  dis- 
19 


208 

|)ensation,  was  not  that  promiscuous  assembly  of 
wicked  and  righteous  persons,  in  the  enjoyment  of 
equal  privileges,  that  Mr.  B.  seems  to  think  it  was; 
but  that  it  was  under  a  rigid  discipline,  '''-separating 
the  precious  from  the  tn/e." 

The  Baptists  suppose,  because  they  have  been 
baptized  by  immersion,  that  therefore  they  have  a 
mark  upon  them,  by  which  they  are  distinguished 
from  others;  whereas,  no  one  could  discern  from 
the  fict  of  their  having  been  baptized  once,  or  twenty 
times,  that  they  were  worthy  members  of  the  visi- 
ble church  of  Christ.  They  might  be  'washed  only 
to  fouler  stains,'  so  that  after  all,  Mr.  B.  says  about 
^^discerning  by  ordinances'^  is  a  mere  fancy  of  his 
own.     'Judge  ye  what  I  say.' 

My  argument  for  the  unity  of  the  church  of  the 
true  God,  stands  unshaken  by  any  thing  T  have  yet 
seen  from  Mr.  B.  God  never  had  but  one  churchy 
and  will  never  have  less  or  more. 

The  illustration  from  Rom.  xi,  which  I  used  to 
show  the  unity  of  the  churchy  seems  rather  to  have 
thrown  Mr.  B.  into  a  difficulty.  "By  the  root,  sap, 
and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree,  (he  says,)  no  doubt  the 
apostle  intends  the  means  of  grace,  with  which 
they,  (the  Jewish  nation,)  had  so  lonof  been  blessed. 


209 

Such  only  as  believed,  retained  these  blessings,  and 
by  the  new  order  of  things  which  Christ  had  insti- 
tuted, were  united  with  Gentile  believers  in  partak- 
ing of  them.  Here  was  a  visible  church  of  Christ.^^ 
p.  9.  Now,  observe,  according  to  this  representa- 
tion, the  visible  church  of  Christ  enjoys  the  ^means 
of  graced  which  the  Jewish  nation  formerly  pos- 
sessed. And  the  apostle,  also,  says  that  when  the 
Jews  return  from  their  unbelief,  "they  shall  be  graft- 
ed into  their  oxen  olive  tree.^^  In  this  passage,  Mr. 
B.  fairly  admits  that  the  believing  Jews  remained 
in  the  possession  of  their  privileges,  and  that  the 
Gentiles  were  incorporated  with  them.  And  he 
says,  1  may  call  the  Jewish  establishment  'a  typical 
church,  or  a  national  church — but  not  a  visible 
church  of  Jesus  Christ.''  Reader,  was  not  one  of 
the  privileges,  which  they  enjoyed,  (which  he  calls 
'means  of  grace,')  the  right  of  dedicating, their  infant 
offspring  to  the  true  God,  in  an  initiatory  rite?  Now, 
although  Mr.  B.  acknowledges  that  the  root,  and 
fatness,  still  remain  the  same  to  those  that  believed, 
he  will  have  it,  that  the  believing  parent,  and  the 
child,  are  deprived  of  a  privilege,  which  had  been 
long  enjoyed.  And  the  anomaly  is  presented  of  a 
mother,  a  part  of  whose  sons  have  been  recognised 


210 

as  church  members  by  circumcision,  while  those 
born  to  her,  after  her  reception  of  the  Messiah, 
are  left,  so  far  as  any  outward  sign  or  rite  is  con- 
cerned, in  as  outcast  a  condition  as  the  chil- 
dren of  her  heathen  neighbors.  And  this,  too,  un- 
der a  dispensation  of  increased  light,  and  enlarged 
privileges!  f  / 

On  page  13,  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  render  my  argu- 
ment ridiculous:  After  cutting  the  sentence  in  two, 
(the  old  trade,)  putting  a  period  where  I  had  put  a 
cojnma,  so  as  to  make  it  appear  that  the  quotation 
was  a  whole  sentence,  and  also  leaving  out  a  note  of 
interrogation  in  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph,  he 
says,  ^Singular  reasoning,  truly!'' — did  any  man 
ever  hear  before  of  such  an  argument?  Mr.  B.  had 
said — "^Fe  know  that  Esau  and  Ishmael,  and  others,  de- 
scendants of  Abraham,  were  rejected  from  the  covenant  of 
salvation  bij  Jesus  Christ,''' — and  I  asked — How 
can  he  know  this?  when,  according  to  his  own  show- 
ing, the  covenant  of  salvation  was  not  offered  to 
them,  and  the  only  covenant  of  which  they  knew 
any  thing,  was  purely  of  a  temporal  nature.  I  still 
ask:  Where  is  it  written  that  they  were  excluded 
from  the  covenant  of  salvation? 

The  gentleman,  after  taking  the  liberties  stated 


211 

above,  with  what  I  had  said,  complains  exceedingly, 
on  the  same  page,  that  I  had  attempted,  in  quoting 
him,  to  make  him  appear  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of 
my  readers;  and  says,  "this  seems  to  be  a  favorite 
method  with  him,"  (me.)  And,  after  preparing  the 
reader  for  a  display  of  the  very  unfair  manner  in 
which  I  had  treated  him,  he  sets  down  two  passages 
in  parallel  columns,  and  invites  the  reader  to  com- 
pare them.  I  have  compared  them  again  and  again, 
without  seeing  that  they  differ  at  all  in  the  sense. 
Thinking,  perhaps,  I  might  not  be  able  myself, 
to  see  so  clearly  in  the  matter,  as  would  a  disinter- 
ested person,!  requested  ten  or  twelve  intelligent  gen- 
tlemen successively  to  compare  them,  to  see  if  they 
could  discover  any  sense  in  Mr.  B's  quotation  that 
is  not  in  mine.  So  far  I  have  found  no  one  who  was 
sufficiently  sharp  sighted  to  see  the  difference  that 
Mr.  B.  complains  of.  As  for  his  complaint,  that 
the  word  rights,  in  the  last  sentence,  is  put  instead 
of  the  word  rites,  as  in  his  quotation,  we  have  only 
to  say,  the  accidental  substitution  of  that  word  for 
the  other,  did  not  affect  the  controversy  at  all.  It 
was  evidently  an  error  of  the  compositor,  I  gained 
nothing  by  it,  and  all  the  harm  done  was  to  make 

tautology  in  the  sentence,  and  give  Mr.  B.  an  oppor- 
19* 


212 

t unity  to  groan,  without  cause.  Although  1  am 
satisfied  that  I  have  done  the  gentleman  no  wrong, 
in  quoting  him,  yet  to  gratify  him,  in  the  revised 
edition,  I  have  placed  his  own  quotation  at  length, 
and  I  hope  the  compositor  will,  in  the  last  sentence 
of  the  quotation,  get  the  7'ight  word  ^rite.^  So  that 
the  gentleman,  if  he  should  honor  me  with  any  fur- 
ther notice,  will  not  have  this  ^straw  to  catch  at^  in 
supporting  his  sinking  cause,  and  vindicating  his  in- 
jured reputation. 

In  his  remarks  on  my  'string  of  questions,'  as  he 
calls  them,  page  15,  he  seems  quite  to  have  lost  his 
amiability  I  suppose  those  interrogatories  awoke 
his  ^''ordinary'^''  or  ea^fraordinary  ''^sensibility.''''  He 
is  at  a  loss,  he  says,  what  to  attribute  those  ques- 
tions to; — whether  to  'a  want  of  common  sense,'  or 
to  wickedness,  in  'intentional  misrepresentation.' 
He  will  have  it,  that  either  my  understanding  or 
my  heart  is  defective.  He  hopes,  however,  I  will 
'find  some  explanation  that  will  relieve  him.'  Now, 
candid  reader,  I  have  no  means  by  which  to  learn 
what  Mr.  B's  meaning  was,  except  from  the  words 
which  he  used.  If  he  cannot  find  means  to  make 
himself  understood,  that  is  not  my  fault,  and  I  have 
no  fears  that  the  intelligent  reader  will  understand 


213 

his  words  in  any  other  sense,  than  the  obvious  one, 
which  I  gave  them.  He  has  acknowledged  that  the 
statements  made  in  my  quotation  '•are  contradicted 
by  the  facts  in  the  case.'  Then  if  the  reader  shall 
find  that  I  have  quoted  him  fairly,  it  will  appear  that 
he  himself  has  contradicted  the  facts,  relative  to  the 
institution  of  circumcision  in  the  family  of  Abraham. 
My  appeal  is  to  you. 

I  will  here  present  the  reader  with  a  quotation 
from  Mr.  B's  Strictures,  page  4,  which  may  throw 
some  light  on  the  views  expressed  by  him  in  his  Ser- 
mon, page  17 — "T/ie  Ahrahamic  dispensation  se- 
cured TO  ALL  who  were  circumcised,  a  portion  in 
THE  EARTHLY  Canaan."  Now,  wiU  that  gentle- 
man say  that  this  statement  is  not  contradicted  by 
the  facts?  Ishmael,  and  Esau,  and  their  seed,  were 
circumcised,  and  the  men  of  Abraham's  house,  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  in  number: — and.  did  all,  or 
any  of  them,  have  any  portion  in  the  earthly 
Canaan?  I  answer  no — and  every  man  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  his  bible,  and  has  not  'a  theory  to  sup- 
port by  contradicting  facts,  will  answer  no.  'I 
speak  as  unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say.' 

On  page  15,  in  noticing  my  remarks  relative  to 
the  New  Constitution  of  Virginia,  which  I  had  used 


S14 

by  way  of  illustration,  Mr.  B.,  instead  of  giving  the 
illustration  as  I  had  stated  it,  gives  just  enough  of 
it  to  make  a  wrong  impression,  and  answer  his  own 
purposes.  If  he  had  given  all  my  words  in  the  case, 
the  reader  would  have  seen  that  I  was  perfectly 
correct*  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  ^Appeal'  for  the 
illustration  as  I  used  it.  Why  did  not  the  gentle- 
man see  fit  to  give  the  illustration  which  I  took  from 
the  common  law?  I  suppose  he  thought  it  best  to 
to  keep  that  out  of  the  view  of  his  readers,  as  he  has 
most  of  my  arguments. 

Page  18,  Mr,  B.  says,  "It  is  exceedingly  unfair 
to  bring  the  charge  of  *close  communion'  against 
us,  when  you  ought  to  have  known  our  sentiments 
upon  this  subject."  Does  he  mean  to  deny,  that  the 
Baptists  hold  close  communion?  His  quotation  from 
our  Discipline  proves  just  nothing  for  his  cause,  be- 
cause it  says  not  a  word  about  the  communicant 
having  been  baptized,  nor  does  it  say  any  thing 
about  persons  of  another  denomination.  His  state- 
ment about  my  being  as  close  as  he  is,  if  I  follow  out 
our  constitution,  is  altogether  gratuitous.  The  dif- 
ference is  only  this — /  admit  all  the  Christian 
world  to  the  Lord's  table,  who  are  not  immoral  in 
their  lives,  and  who  acknowledge  our  Lord  Jesus- 


215 

Christ  as  their  Saviour; — Mr.  B.  excludes  all  the 
Christian  world,  however  pious,  however  much  the  friends 
of  Jesus,  exce^it  those  who  have  been  dipped  in  bap- 
tism in  adult  age.  Does  the  reader  think  /  am  as 
close  as  Mr.  B? 

But  he  asks,  'suppose  the  applicant  for  commu- 
nion should  tell  you  that  he  rejects  water  baptism 
altogether,  would  you  receive  him  to  the  commu- 
nion?' I  should  endeavor  to  convince  him  of  the 
propriety  and  obligation  of  baptism.  But  if  I  could 
not  succeed  in  this,  I  would  not  'smite  my  fellow 
servant,'  as  Robert  Hall  says  the  Close  Communion 
Baptists  have  done;  and  make  for  him  that  a  term 
of  C03I5IUIVI0N  which  is  not  a  term.  I  would  ex- 
tend to  him  the  lenity  which  Hezekiah  extended  to 
the  people  in  his  day.  See  2  Chron.  xxx,  17,  18, 
19, 20 — ^^For  a  multitude  of  the  people  had  not  cleans- 
ed themselves,  yet  did  they  eat  the  Passover  otherwise  than 
it  tvas  written;  but  Hezekiah  prayed  for  them,  saying,  the 
good  Lord  pardon  every  one  that  prep areth  his  heart  to 
seek  God — though  he  be  not  clea>'sed  according  to 
the  purif  cation  of  the  sanctuary.  And  the  Lord  hearkened 
to  Hezekiah^''^  <^'c.  This  king  did  not  feel  himself 
authorized  to  drive  the  people  of  the  Lord  from  the 
Passover  feast;  because   they  had  omitted  the  pre- 


216 

paratory  purification.  And  I  can  see  no  good  rea- 
son why  we  sliould  debar  a  sincere  believer  in  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  from  commemorating  that 
solemn  event  in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper,  be- 
cause he  cannot  see  it  to  be  his  duty  to  be  bap- 
tized. 

As  Mr.  B.  has  quoted  our  discipline  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  says  members  of  other  churches  have  to 
undergo  an  examination,  and  takes  upon  himself  to 
suppose,  that  we  would  make  the  matter  of  baptism 
a  point  in  the  examination  of  the  applicant,  I  will 
only  say,  if  he  had  found  it  convenient  to  quote  the 
next  sentence,  the  reader  would  have  seen  the  ex- 
planation of  the  one  he  did  quote.  Here  it  is — "No 
person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper  among 
us,  who  is  gyiliy  of  any  practice.,  for  which  we 
would  exclude  a  member  of  our  church.'' 

As  Mr.  B.,  page  19,  has  dragged  in  the  subject 
of  female  communion,  and  has  declared  that  '•'■there 
is  a  Thus  saiih  the  Lord  for  it  in  every  passage  of 
scripture  that  speaks  of  the  Lord's  supper  at  all,''^  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  examine  this  matter  a  little.  In  the 
first  mention  of  the  supper,  Luke,  xxii,  14  to  20, 
it  is  said  that  Jesus  "sat  down,  and  the  twelve  apos- 
ties  with  him."     Now,  will  the  gentleman  say,  that 


217 

part  of  the  apostles  were  fe.^iales?  He  says  in 
every  passage,  where  the  supper  is  mentioned,  there 
is  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for  female  communion* 
It  happens  that  we  have  the  names  of  the  twelve 
who  were  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper^ 
and  there  is  no  female  name  among  them.  But  he 
says  '■^disciples  met,  and  we  know,  without  any  in^ 
ference  about  it,  that  the  females  met  with  them; 
because  we  learn  that  both  men  and  women  were 
made  disciples  by  baptism."  "You  might  as  well 
contend  that  it  is  an  'inference'  to  say  that  the 
males  met  to  break  bread; yor  they  are  no  more  spe^ 
cified  than  the  females.''''  Mr.  B,  surely  pre- 
sumes very  much  upon  the  ignorance,  or  credulity 
of  his  readers,  when  he  makes  such  sweeping  decla- 
rations as  the  above.  Does  he  suppose  that  they 
are  so  little  acquainted  with  their  bibles — the  book 
he  so  often  calls  the  'poor  man's  lexicon' — that  lie 
expects  to  pass  off  on  them  such  unsupported  decla- 
rations? 1  refer  the  reader  to  1  Cor.  xi,  28,  29, 
33 — "But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so 
let  HIM  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For 
HE  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily- — to  him- 
self, &c.  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when  ye 
come   together  to  eat,  <kc. — and  yet,  Mr.  B.  says, 


218 

7nales  are  no  more  specified  than  females.  Our 
Baptist  writers  aware  that  the  course  of  reasoning 
they  pursue  with  regard  to  infants,  denying  them  the 
rite  of  baptism,  because  they  say  there  is  no  precept 
or  precedent  for  baptizing  children,  would,  if  adopted, 
in  the  case  offemalesy  exclude  them  from  the  Loj'd^s 
table,  have  attempted  to  furnish  a  Thus  saith  the 
Lord.  And  they  will  not  allow  that  there  is  any 
inference  in  the  matter.  They  argue  thus;  Women 
were  baptized  as  well  as  men — women  and  men 
constituted  the  churches — the  churches  partook  of 
the  Lord's  supper — therefore  women  have  a  right 
to  the  Lord's  table.  But  is  not  this  an  inference? 
This  is  no  express  vmrrant.  It  is  strange  that 
those  who  reason  thus  for  women,  should  yet  refuse 
all  inference  for  the  infant  children  of  women. 

As  Mr.  B.,  page  20,  has  concluded,  without  rea- 
son, that  I  had  either  given  vp  the  argument  from 
proselyte  baptism,  or  had  not  made  up  an  opinion  on 
that  point,  and  expresses  a  hope  that  he  will  hear  no 
more  on  the  subject,  I  have  introduced  a  short  arti- 
cle in  the  enlarged  Appeal  on  proselyte  baptism,  to 
which  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader.  To  what  I 
have  there  said  on  the  subject,  I  here  add  a  remark, 
and  several  authorities.     The  baptism  of  proselytes 


219 

is  generally  supposed  to  have  taken  its  rise  from  the 
baptism  of  the  Jews,  when  passing  through  the  Red 
sea,  to  which  the  apostle  refers,  1  Cor.  x,  1,2.  As 
they,  coming  out  from  idolatrous  Egypt,  were  'all 
baptized  to  Moses,'  the  Jews  considered,  in  all  after 
ages,  that,  those  who  renounced  idolatry,  and  join- 
ed the  church  of  the  true  God,  should  be  baptized 
as  well  as  circumcised.  In  proof  of  which,  1  refer 
to  the  quotations  given  below.  Calmet's  Dictionary, 
article  Proselyte — "The  Jews  require  three  things 
in  a  complete  proselyte;  baptism,  circumcision,  and 
sacrifice;  but  for  women,  only  baptism  and  sacri- 
fice." 

Witsius,  one  of  Mr.  B's  witnesses,  says — "When 
a  Gentile  became  a  proselyte  of  righteousness,  three 
ceremonies  were  used,  viz:  circumcision,  baptism^ 
and  sacrifice." 

Stackhouse,  another  of  Mr.  B's  witnesses,  says« — 
"The  custom  of  the  Jews,  in  all  ages,  has  been  to 
receive  their  heathen  proselytes  by  baptism,  as  well 
as  by  sacrifice  and  circumcision." 

Dr.    Wall,   another  of  Mr.  B's  witnesses,  says — 

"Whenever  Gentiles  were  proselyted  to  the  Jewish 

religion,  they  were  initiated   by   circumcision,  the 

offering  of  a  sacrifice,  and  baptism*     They  were  all 
20 


220 

baptized,  males  and  females,  adults  and  infants. 
This  was  their  constant  practice,  from  the  time  of 
Moses  to  that  of  our  Saviour,  and  from  that  period 
to  the  present  day." 

Finally,  I  quote  Dr.  Adam  Clarke^  another  of  Mr. 
B's  witnesses — "The  apostles  knew  well,  that  the 
Jews  not  only  circumcised  the  children  of  proselytes, 
but  also  baptized  them.  The  children,  and  e\enin- 
fants  of  proselytes  were  baptized  among  the  Jews. 
They  were,  in  consequence,  reputed  clean,  and  par- 
takers of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant.'' 

The  apostles,  being  by  birth  and  education  Jews, 
would,  therefore,  in  'discipling  all  nations,'  admit 
the  children  with  the  parents,  unless  forbidden  so  to 
do. 

The  astonishment  expressed  at  John's  baptizing, 
did  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  he  practised  baptism, 
but  because  he  declared  he  was  neither  the  Christ, 
nor  Elias,  nor  that  prophet,  at  the  same  time  admin- 
istering the  rite  of  baptism; — that  he  should,  while 
disclaiming  the  character  of  a  minister,  exercise  the 
functions  of  one.     See  John  i,  19  to  26. 

The  quibble  of  Mr.  B.,  on  page  20,  about  infants 
not  being  saved  'by  any  thing  pertaining  to  the  gos- 
pel  dispensation,'  is    one   among    many    instances 


221 

which  prove  the  non-commital  character  of  his  theo- 
logical views.  While  he  calls  upon  me  to  state 
frankly  and  plainly  what  our  views  are,  he  studiously 
avoids  giving  his  own  with  regard  to  the  condition 
of  infants.  He  says,  "we,  or  at  least  /,  do  not  place 
their  salvation  upon  any  thing  pertaining  to  the  Christian 
dispensation,''^ 

On  page  29,  he  says,  with  regard  to  infants,  "I 
have  not  attempted  to  show,  (nor  shall  I,)  how  they 
are  fitted  for  heaven;  but  I  am  sure  it  is  not  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of  the  truth." 
Here  the  reader  will  perceive,  Mr.  B.  gives  no  opin- 
ion about  the  manner  in  which  infants  are  saved. 
Does  he  believe  at  all  in  the  salvation  of  all  who 
die  in  infancy?  1  do  not  ask  this  question  because 
he  does  not  baptize  infants,  but  because  he  was  once 
an  advocate  of  a  system  of  partial  grace;  and  al- 
though 'he  has  changed  his  manner  of  preaching,'  I 
have  not  learned  that  he  has  avowed  the  'change  of 
his  belief  m  one  single  item.' 

Now,  candid  reader,  I  shall  appeal  to  the  Phila- 
delphia Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  page  45,  for 
evidence  that  the  Baptists  formerly  held  the  regene- 
ration of  some  infants  at  least,  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit, 
and  I  suppose  the  spirit  'pertains  to  the  gospel  dis- 


222 

pensation.'  The  words  of  the  Confession  are,  "Elect 
infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved 
hy  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when, 
and  where,  and  how  he  pleases:  so,  also,  are  all  elect 
persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called 
by  the  ministry  of  the  word.''  The  reader  will  ob- 
serve; that  they  quote  the  words  of  Christ  to  adult 
Nicodemus,  in  proof  of  the  position  here  stated — 
'Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God;' — 'The  wind  bloweth  where  it 
listeth,'  &c. — 'So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit.'  It  seems  then,  that,  those  plain  honest  peo- 
ple, loho  loere  not  afraid  that  the  world  should  know  what 
they  held  as  doctrine,  considered  that  infants  were 
fitted  for  heaven  through  the  operation  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Confession  I  quote  from,  was  put  forth  by  the 
'Elders  and  brethren,  in  London  and  the  country,' 
and  adopted  by  the  Association  which  met  at  Phila- 
delphia, in  1742. 

But  perhaps  I  shall  be  told  these  views  are  not 
entertained  noio  by  the  Virginia  Baptists.  And 
as  Mr.  Broaddus  sfiys,  '  The  Baptists  generally  ac- 
knowledge no  Confession  of  Faith  hit  the  JVew  Testa- 
ment,'' page  24,  I  may  be  referred  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  learn  Baptist  views.    However,  if  the  Bap- 


223 

tists  will  publish  'Declarations  of  Faith,'  I  must  be 
allowed  to  quote  them  as  authority.  In  *a  Declara- 
tion of  Faith,'  published  by  the  United  Baptists  of 
Virginia,  (or  several  associations  of  them,)  printed 
in  Alexandria,  1838,  they  declare,  page  14 — "The 
creature  being  wholly  passive  therein,  being  dead  in 
sins  and  trespasses,  until,  being  quickened  and  re* 
newed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to 
answer  this  call,  and  embrace  the  grace  conveyed 
in  it,''  &c.  So  it  seems,  candid  reader,  that,  al- 
though Mr.  B.  will  not  state  his  views,  (if  he  has 
any,)  about  the  manner  in  which  infants  are  saved, 
or  fitted  for  heaven;  that  in  the  view  of  the  Confes- 
sions of  Faith  quoted  above,  adults  and  infants  are 
both  'renewed,  or  regenerated'  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Mr.  B.  affects  to  believe,  that  he  has  found  out  a 
wonderful  difference  between  my  views  and  Mr. 
Wesley's,  on  the  subject  of  the  condition  of  infants; 
and  he  seems  so  pleased  with  the  discovery,  that  he 
drags  it  forward,  for  the  entertainment  of  his  read- 
ers, in  several  different  letters.  Let  us  look  at  it  a 
little.  Orf  page  32,  he  says,  "Allow  me  to  quot 
what  Mr.  Wesley  says,  and  also  what  you  yourselt 
say.     'Infants  need  to  be  washed  from  original  sin.' 

(Wesley's  Works,  vol.   9,  p.  159.)     'Infants  have 
20* 


224 

innocency  to  recommend  them.'  (Slicer's  Appeal,  p. 
20.) »  Is  not  this  a  disagreement."  He  adds,  "But 
you  even  disagree  with  yourself  on  this  point;  for, 
although  youjecommend  infants  by  their  innocency, 
(page  20,)  you  say,  (page  30,)  infants  need  an 
application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  purify  or 
make  them  liolyy  Reader,  can  you  suppose  that 
Mr.  B.  is  so  destitute  of  common  understanding, 
that  he  does  not  know  the  difference  between  inno- 
cence and  moral  purity  or  holiness?  A  teacher  in 
the  Baptist  church,  and  yet  affecting  not  to  know 
that  innocency,  and  the  want  of  purity  are  compati- 
ble! I  did  say  that  infants  had  innocency  to  recom- 
mend them  to  baptism,  and  i  explained  it  by  stating 
they  were  in  a  state  of  justification.  In  proof  of 
which  I  quoted  Rom.  v,  18 — "T/te  free  gift  hath 
passed  upon  all,  tojustijication  of  life.''^  I  did  say 
that  infants  needed  the  application  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  to  make  them 
holy,  and  fit  them  for  heaven; — and  I  gave  the  same 
reason  for  it  that  Mr,  Wesley  did,  viz:  infants  need 
to  be  washed  from  original  sin,' — My  words  on  page 
30,  are,  'I  suppose  Mr.  B.  holds  the  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin,  in  opposition  to  Pelagius;  if  so,  infants  need 
an  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  purify  or 


225 

make  them  holy,"  Now  you  see,  intelligent  reader, 
that  Mr.  B.  has  taken  my  words  out  of  their  proper 
connection,  that  he  has  brought  a  passage  from  page 
30,  and  put  it  opposite  a  passage  on  page  20,  that  re- 
ferred to  another  matter,  in  order  to  impose  upon  his 
readers  an  impression  that  I  disagree  with  myself; 
and,  as  though  he  thought  he  could  convince  sensible 
people  by  this  kind  of  management,  says,  with  an 
air  of  triumph,  "So  glaring  are  the  contradictions, 
into  which  this  human  device  of  baptizing  infants, 
can  lead  sensible  men."  Candid  reader,  do  yon  see 
any  disagreement  between  Mr.  Wesley's  views  and 
mine?  do  you  see  that  7ny  own  views  are  unequal?  '1 
speak  as  unto  wise  men.' 

1  must  now  ask  a  question  or  two  further,  to  show 
the  management  of  this  gentleman.  Do  any  of  Mr. 
B's  members  enjoy  the  blessing  of  justification?  I 
have  no  doubt  many  of  them  do.  Being  justified, 
are  they  innocent,  or  are  they  guilty?  Innocent,  I 
suppose,  for  I  have  always  been  taught  to  believe  that 
justification  takes  away  the  guilt  of  sin.  This, 
too,  I  find  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Philadelphia 
Confession  above  quoted,  where  they  distinguish 
justification  and  sanctification,  and  speak  of  them 
under  different  heads.  Well  then,  those  persons 
among  Mr.  B's  members  who  are  justified,  i.  e,  de- 


226 

iivered  from  guilt,  are  they  holy  in  heart  also?  If 
they  are  not,  they  need  the  sanctifying  operations  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Does  Mr.  B.  suppose,  that,  chil- 
dren are  guilty?  He  seems  to  be  greatly  troubled 
that  I  should  contend  for  their  innocency.  I  sup- 
posed, that  the  veriest  novice  in  theology  would  be 
able  to  distinguish  between  personal  guilt,  arising 
from  actual  sin  against  God's  law,  and  that  corrup- 
tion of  nature,  whiv-^li  every  child  brings  into  the 
world  with  it,  which  both  Mr.  Wesley  and  myself 
have  called  ^original  sin,''  and  which  the  Baptist 
Confession,  page  32,  calls  ^original  corruption,  from 
which  proceed  all  actual  transgressions.'^  But  in 
this,  it  seems,  I  am  disappointed,  Mr.  B.  cannot  un- 
derstand it.  He  says,  page  30,  'I  acknowledge  my- 
self utterly  unable  to  comprehend.'  'It  will  require 
some  one  better  skilled  in  mystification  than  myself, 
to  untangle  all  this  jumble  of  contradictions.'  He 
asks,  "How  those  who  are  not  guilty — in  a  state  of 
justification — can  need  an  application  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  to  purify 
them?"  Page  29,  he  says  also,  "What  do  you 
mean  Mr.  S.?  Innocency  need  purifying?  I  am 
truly  astonished  at  such  views  of  the  subject.''  I 
suppose  he  thought,  that  if  he  cried  out  from  aston- 


221 

ishment,  and  especially  if  he  could  make  an  impres- 
sion in  the  Methodist  community,  that  Mr.  Wesley's 
views  and  mine  were  at  variance,  he  might  scare 
some  timid  soul  into  the  water.  Here  him,  page  21, 
"Here  is  the  author  of  the  Methodist  hook  of  Discipline,  and 
one  of  Us  authorized  expounders,  as  far  apart  in  their  vieivs 
of  a  gospel  ordinance,  as  guilt  is  from  innocencyH!  You 
need  not  toonder,  sir,  that,  under  these  circumstances, 
those  that  have  net  skill  sufficient  to  iveld  cold  iron  and 
hot  together,  should,  ivith  the  bible,  (the  ''poor  man's  Lexi- 
con,^) to  guide  them.,  reject  both  your  theory  and  Mr.  JVes- 
ley's.'^  It  may  be  that,  if  Mr.  B.  had  a  creed,  and 
should  make  it  known  to  the  world,  and  it  should 
not  be  too  'gloriously  uncertain'  to  be  understood, 
that  some  of  his  views  might  at  least  be  as  objec- 
tionable even  to  some  of  the  Baptists,  as  mine  appear 
to  be  to  him,  especially  as  he  has  been  strongly  sus- 
pected of  heresy,  by  many  of  'the  baptized.^  Query, 
is  this  the  reason  why  the  gentleman  says,  page  23, 

"I  HAVE  NO  CREED  NOR  CATECHISM  FOR  THEM  TO 

learn!"  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  has  no  creed^ 
but  he  has  found  it  convenient  to  make  a  translation 
of  the  New  Testament  to  suit  his  views.  When- 
ever an  individual  wishes  to  pull  down  the  fences  of 
established  doctrine  and  discipline,  he  raises  a  hue 


1 


228 

and  cry  about  creeds  and  Confessions  of  Faith,  say- 
ing 'the  bible  is  my  creed,'  'the  bible  is  my  disci- 
pline,'—  and  for  what  is  all  this,  but  to  make  an  im- 
pression upon  the  credulous  that  his  views  are  more 
in  keeping  with  the  scriptures  than  those  of  others, 
in  order  that  he  may  form  a  party,  and  set  himself 
up  as  its  oracle?  Thus  giving  an  illustration  of  the 
words  of  the  apostle, — "of  your  own  selves  shall 
men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things.^  to  draw  away 
disciples  after  them^     Acts  xx,  30. 

I  here,  candid  reader,  warn  you  against  all  lead- 
ers of  parties,  who  emblazon  upon  their  banners, 
^No  Creed  hut  the  Bible.''  They  practice  a  kind  of 
^religious  piracy,^  and  by  'soft  words'  and  'fair 
speeches'  delude  the  simple. 

In  the  early  part  of  my  ministry,  I  was  brought 
in  contact  with  some  who  had,  professedly,  no  creed, 
and  no  discipline,  but  the  New  Testament.  They 
thought  this  creed  taught  them  to  reject  infant  bap- 
tism; to  hold  immersion  as  the  exclusive  mode;  to 
deny  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  also  the  divin- 
ity of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  How  many  other  er- 
rors they  held,  it  was  difficult  to  tell,  for  their  sys- 
tem, as  the   systems    of  all  such,  possessed   a   kind  of 

CHAMELION    CHARACTER.       I  hold    the  tWO  followiilg 


229 

axioms  to  be  undeniable,  1st,  Men  who  are  intelli" 
gent  will  have  a  well  digested  system  of  religious  views; 
and  2d,  That  men  who  have  moral  honesty  will  not  hesi- 
tate to  publish  those  views  to  the  ivorld.  A  non-commit- 
tal course  on  Christian  doctrine,  is  as  unworthy  a 
high  minded  honorable  man,  as  it  is  unbecoming  the 
frankness  that  ought  always  to  mark  the  course  of  a 
religious  teacher.  If  a  man  be  in  the  ministry,  and 
his  mind  is  unsettled,  let  him  retire  until  he  has 
satisfied  himself,  what  is  truth,  and  what  is  error. — 
Let  him  not  stand  up  before  intelligent  men,  and 
reading  a  few  paragraphs  from  a  religious  newspaper, 
say,  '■^My  friends,  these  contain  my  present  views  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine.  J  say  my  present  views,  I  do  not  say  that 
they  will  be  my  views  tivelve  inonths  hence,  or  one  month 
from  now,  but  they  contain  my  present  views.^^  The 
nineteenth  century  is  not  the  time  of  the  world  to  be 
making,  every  month,  discoveries  in  Christian  doc- 
trine.    'Judge  ye  what  I  say.' 

What  did  Mr.  B.  expect  to  gain,  by  quoting 
against  infants,  page  30,  the  words  of  St.  Peter, 
Acts  XV,  9?  In  the  first  place,  he  quotes  the  text 
wrong.  His  words  are,  "Peter  says,  'God  purifies 
the  heart  by  faith;'  "  Peter's  words  are,  "And  put  no 
difference   between    us  and  them,   purifying   their 


_^30 

hearts  by  faith.''  Peter's  words  refer  to  particular 
individuals,  Hheir  hearts.^  They  were  adult  Gentile 
converts,  as  the  reader  may  see  by  referring  to  the 
passage.  Peter  puts  adult  converts  in  the  premises, 
and  Mr.  B.  puts  children  in  the  conclusion.  This 
is  a  favourite  method  of  some  Baptists.  Suppose 
Peter  does  say  their  hearts  were  purified  by  faith, 
does  that  prove  the  heart  cannot  be  purified  without 
faith?  St.  Paul  says,  Heb.  ix,  14,  'That  the  con- 
science is  purged  by  the  blood  of  Christ.'  And  in 
Titus  iii,  5,  he  says,  God  saved  us  'by  the  washing 
of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'' 
I  wonder,  candid  reader,  if  Mr.  B.  was  aware  of  the 
dilemma,  into  which  quoting  Peter's  words  as  being 
against  our  children,  would  bring  him?  Either  their 
hearts  can  be  purified  ivithout  faith; — they  need  no 
purification; — or  they  cannot  go  to  heaven.  If  they 
are  born  fit  for  heaven  in  Mr.  B's  view,  then  he  is  a 
Pelagian,  and  holds  infant  purity.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  they  are  born  unclean,  unfit  for  heaven,  and 
cannot  be  purified  without  faith,  and  are  incapable 
of  believing,  then,  unless  in  their  purity  they  can  go 
to  a  holy  heaven,  they  must,  of  necessity,  be  lost. 
Such  are  the  consequences  which  follow  from  this 


231 

gentleman'' s  method  of  quoting  scripture  against  in- 
fants. 

Tlie  scriptures  say  expressly  that  John  the  Bap- 
tist ^did  no  miracle.'^  Yet  Mr.  B.,  page  29,  Avill 
have  it,  that  his  being  'filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
was  "altogether  'a  miraculous  iirfluencej'  and  sug- 
gests nothing  to  us  on  the  subject  of  the  salvation  of 
infants.''  John's  hniraculous  influence'  then,  lay 
dormant  all  his  life,  for  '■he  did  no  miracle.^ 

On  paoe  28,  Mr.  B.  says,  with  regard  to  the 
children  that  were  brought  to  Christ,  and  taken  in 
his  arms,  "1  did  not  affirm  that  there  never  were 
any  unconscious  infants  brought  to  Jesus;  I  only 
expressed  a  doubt  on  the  subject:  and  I  still  have  too 
much  doubt  on  the  subject,  to  admit  of  my  regulat- 
ing a  gospel  ordinance  by -it."  It  may  be,  if  this 
gentleman  should  write  once  or  twice  more,  that  he 
will  become  a  believer  at  least  in  the  infancy  of  those 
children,  for  he  seems  to  be  getting  rid  of  his  doubts; 
and  as  doubts  leave  him,  I  suppose  faith  will  take 
possession  of  his  mind.  In  the  sermon,  page  13,  he 
says,  'I  am  led  to  doubt  exceedingly,^  I  think  he 
is  a  little  ashamed  of  that  now,  for  in  quoting  him- 
self, he  says,  'J  expressed  a  doubt, ^  and  'I  still  have 

too  much  doubt,''  &;c.    And  he  says,  'he  hopes  I  will 
21 


232 

see  the  difference  between  affirming  that  'there  never 
were,'  and  doubting  'whether  there  ever  were.'  And 
adds,  "if  you  can  see  the  difference,  you  may  decide 
who  ought  to  ^hlusli'  in  this  case."  I  suppose 
there  is  about  as  much  difference  between  the  man 
who  has  '•exceeding  doubts'  about  the  truth  of  God's 
word,  and  he  that  'affirms'  that  the  word  is  not  true, 
as  there  is  between  a  well  grown  boy  and  a  man. 
They  are  both  of  the  same  family,  only  one  is  a  little 
better  grown  than  the  other.  He  that  'exceedingly 
doubts'  God's  word,  and  he  that  denies  its  truth,  are 
both  ^o^  i\\Q  family  of  unbelief ."^  Reader,  do  you  see 
the  difference? 

Althougli  I  had  called  the  attention  of  the  reader 
to  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  xviii,  15,  where  it  is 
said,  ''They  brought  unto  him  also  infants,'  and  had 
hinted  at  the  unfairness  of  Mr.  B.  in  quoting  the 
passage  from  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  bringing  his 
'lexicon'  to  explain  paidia  in  those  passages,  while 
he  omitted  to  quote  Luke,  where  the  word  brepha 
is  used  instead  of  paidia,  yet  in  his  'Letters'  he 
plays  the  same  game.  Although  Luke,  the  physi- 
cian, wrote  after  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  was,  pos- 
sibly, the  most  learned  of  the  three,  and  whose  men- 
tion of  the  case  may  be  presumed  to  give  the  fair 


233 

explanation  of  the  passage  in  Matthew  and  Mark, 
yet  Mr.  B.  does  not  refer  to  Luke  at  all.  Because 
he  knew  that  the  sense  of  bkepha  could  not,  by  any 
possible  construction  be  explained  away.  He  knew 
that  Schrevelius,  to  whom  he  referred  for  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  word  in  Mark,  uiterprets  the  word 
in  Luke  to  mean,  'a  very  little  child.'  And  if 
he  had  consulted  'Donnegan's  Lexicon'  on  the  word, 
he  would  have  found  that  it  signifies  'a  new  born 
BABE,'  and  not  ^hoy,  child,  youth,  servant,"^  &c.  as 
Mr.  B.  defines  the  word  in  Mark  to  mean.  This 
inflexible  word  in  Luke  could  not  be  twisted  so  as 
to  make  against  infants,  therefore  he  passed  it  over 
in  solemn  silence! 

What  he  says,  page  29,  about  children  being  the 
'model  for  adults,'  and  doves,  and  sheep,  and  ser- 
pents being  models  also,  is  far-fetched,  and  perfectly 
ridiculous.  When  Mr.  B.  furnishes  a  passage  from 
God's  word,  where  it  is  said  that  Christ  took  sheep, 
or  doves,  or  serpents  Hnto  his  arms^  'and  blessed 
them,'  and  said  'o/"  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,^ 
and  ^suffer*  them  to  come  to  me,  and  forbid  them 
not,''  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  there  appear  to  be 
some  sense  in  what  he  calls  'a  syllogism.'  I  know 
it  is  often  the  case  that  men  ojet  into  the  'visible 


234 

church'  on  earth  who  have  more  of  the  Hhe  wisdom 
of  the  serpent,^  than  the  %armlessness  of  the  dove,''  but 
Christ  has  neve?-  said  nf  them  ^of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.^ 

After  reading  elder  Dagg's  exposition  of  1  Cor. 
vii,  14,  as  given  hy  Mr.  B.  in  his  seventh  letter,  I 
am  more  fully  persuaded  of  the  correctness  of  the 
view  I  had  given  of  the  passage  in  my  former  argu- 
ment, to  which  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader.  It 
would  have  been  better  if  Mr.  B.  could  have  given 
his  readers  one  text  of  scripture,  only,  against  my 
view  of  the  passage,  than  to  have  given  all  the  Greek 
and  English  of  Mr.  Dagg's  exposition.  I  quoted 
several,  and  referred  to  nine  other  texts  in  support 
of  ray  views. 

On  page  35,  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  furnish  a  salvo 
for  the  contradiction  I  had  pointed  out  between  his 
Sermon  and  the  Strictures?  And  he  asks,  'Are  not 
infants  unbelievers?^  'Surely  you  will  not  deny  this; 
and  yet  they  are  not  guilty  of  the  sin  of  unbelief, 
for  they  are  not  required  to  believe.'  "All  I  mean 
by  denominating  them  unbelievers,  is,  that  they  are 
7iot  believers^  neither  is  it  possible  they  could  be. 
Where  now  is  the  discrepancy?"  Well,  then,  it  is 
not  possible  that  children  should  believe.     And  yet 


235 

he  will  have  it,  that  they  are  vnbelievers.  Mr.  B. 
is  the  first  man,  whose  productions  I  have  ever  read, 
who  could  so  far  forget  or  expose  himself,  as  even 
to  ask  'Are  not  infants  imbelieversV  A  new  kind 
of  unbelievers  truly!!  Suppose,  candid  reader,  T 
apply  a  little  of  Mr.  B's  logic  to  this  case,  in  order 
to  show  more  fully  its  absurdity.  You  will  observe, 
after  all  his  vaunting  about  his  acquaintance  with 
the  scriptures,  and  referring  me  to  them  to  learn 
Baptist  'customs,'  (page  24,)  he  is  exceedingly  care- 
ful not  to  give  us  much  scripture  in  support  of  his 
views.  I  think  the  reader  will  find  that  my  ar- 
gument in  the  'Appeal'  is  supported  by  at  least  two 
texts  of  scripture  for  every  one  furnished  by  him, 
either  in  his  'Sermon'  or  'Letters.'  This  by  the 
way,  however. — But  to  the  point,  'Are  7iot  children 
unbelievers?''  Where  is  the  text?  ^Surely  you  will  not 
deny  this?''  No  1  will  not,  if  God's  word'says  so.  1 
will  not  even  ^doubt  iC  if  the  bible  declares  it. 
Where  is  the  text?  It  is  not  to  be  found.  Then  I 
shall  surely  deny  it,  for  I  cannot  take  it  upon  Mr. 
B's  mere  assertion,  when  he  is  in  the  habit  of  mak- 
ing sweeping  declarations,  and  dogmatical  asser- 
tions, unsupported  by  proof.     But   the   gentleman 

means  that  'they  are  unbelievers,  because  they 
21* 


are  not  believers.'  Woe  to  the  children  if  his 
assertions  are  correct,  and  his  logic  sound.  In  John 
iii,  36,  it  is  said,  "He  that  believeth  not  the  Son, 
shall  not  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
him.^^  The  commission  says,  "He  that  believeth 
NOT  shall  be  damned^  And  in  Rev.  xxi,  8,  'The 
unbelieving  are  classed  with  murderers  and  idola- 
ters,^ and  ^shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  burning  with  fire 
and  brimstone.''  Now  for  Mr.  B's  logic.  "The 
commission  excludes  all  unbelievers,  whether  un- 
conscious infants,  or  unbelieving  adults.''''  Then  if 
their  not  believing  constitutes  them  unbelievers, 
look  at  the  fearful  condition  in  which  they  are 
placed  by  the  texts  above  quoted,  ^They  shall  not 
see  life,''  and  be  with  the  vilest  characters  Hn  the 
lake  of  fre."*  This  is  the  issue  to  which  Mr.  B's 
question,  'Are  not  infants  unbelievers?"^  leads  to. 
'Judge  ye  what  I  say.'  The  scriptures  no  where 
attribute  faith  or  unbelief  to  infants.  Because 
they  eac^,  and  e^j/aZ/?/ require  the  voluntary  exercise 
of  the  m'md  and  heart  with  regard  to  what  God  has 
spoken;  of  which  infants  are  incapable.  And  no 
man  who  understands  the  force  of  language,  will  ask 
such  preposterous  and  silly  questions,  unless  he  is 


237 

closely  wedded  to  a  system  which  he  calculates  to 
help  thereby. 

Mr.  B.,  page  36,  attempts  to  make  out  that  I  have 
misconstrued  his  quotation  from  Dr.  Hill.  The 
reader  can  see,  by  referring  to  my  argument,  that  I 
have  quoted  Mr.  B.  correctly,  (if  he  has  not  quoted 
the  Doctor  correctly  that  is  his  look  out,)  and  have 
given  the  words  their  obvious  meaning.  Mr.  B. 
represents  Dr.  Hill  as  saying,  "the  writings  of  the 
fathers  have  been  so  long  in  the  keeping  of  the  cor- 
rupt church  of  Rome,  and  have  been  so  altered  by 
pious  frauds,  &c.,  that  our  confidence  in  them  must 
be  greatly  weakened  indeed."  And  I  asked  if  the 
infidel  might  not  urge  the  same  reason  against  his 
receiving  the  New  Testament  scriptures,  as  they 
too,  were  long  in  the  keeping  of  the  church  of  Rome? 
Mr.  B.  calls  this  'an  attempt  to  expose  him  and  Dr. 
Hill  to  the  wit  of  infidels.'  If  he  has  exposed  him- 
self, that  is  his  misfortune,  not  my  fault. 

His  attempt  to  destroy  the  credibility  of  'Origen' 
as  a  witness,  by  recounting  some  of  his  errors,  is 
truly  pitiful.  What,  I  ask,  had  Origen's  ^visionary 
views^  to  do  with  his  testimony  concerning  a  plain 
matter  offact7  viz:  ^Infants  by  the  usage  of  the  church  are 
baptized."    His  visionary   views  had  just  as  much 


238 

to  do  with  his  testimony  in  this  case,  as  would  the 
'visionary  views'  of  Stork,  of  the  German  Anabap- 
tists, if  he  had  given  testimony  in  court,  or  to  the 
world,  that  John  Boccold,  the  leader  of  the  sect,  held 
polygamy,  and  had,  at  one  time,  fourteen  wives. 
See  Ross's  History  of  all  Religions,  and  Robinson's 
Charles  V.,  vol.  2,  p.  301.  I  suppose  in  neither 
case  ought  the  testimony  to  be  rendered  invalid,  by 
the  visionary  views  of  the  witness  in  some  other 
matters. 

1  am  entirely  satisfied  with  the  collateral  testi- 
mony for  infant  baptism,  given  from  the  writings  of 
the  'Fathers,'  in  the  former  argument,  and  shall  not 
repeat  them  here,  nor  add  to  the  number  of  the  wit- 
nesses, as  I  conceive  for  the  candid  they  are  quite  suffi- 
cient, and  others  would  not  he  convinced  by  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses. It  was  to  the  interest  of  Demetrius  and  his 
silver  smiths,  when^  'their  craft  was  in  danger,''  to 
'cry  out  great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians;'  this  was 
more  easily  done  than  either  to  prove  the  claims  of 
Diana,  or  to  disprove  the  preaching  of  St.  Paul. 

I  had  shown  that  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  Judson  differed 
only  about  four  hundred  years,  in  fixing  the  origin 
of  infant  baptism;  Mr.  B.,  page  39,  complains  that 
*I  have  done  him  great  injustice'  in  this  case.     He 


239 

seems,  candid  reader,  to  have  been  so  much  hurt, 
that  he  does  httle  beside  complain  of  injustice  done 
him.  He  not  only  disagreed  with  Mr.  Judson,  but 
now,  in  the  very  paragraph  in  which  he  complains, 
he  contradicts  himself,  as  I  shall  here  show.  He 
says  first,  "the  practice  of  baptizing  infants  greto 
out  of  an  opinion  very  early  entertained  by  the  church  of 
Rome,  that  no  unbaptized  person  could  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Then  he  says,  "for  although 
the  baptism  cf  infants  ivas  invented  as  early  as  the  close 
of  the  second  century,  the  sprinkling  of  infants  was 
not  regularly  introduced  until  753,"  &;c.  Now, 
reader,  will  he  say  that  the  church  of  Rome  existed 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century?  If  he  will  con- 
tinue to  display  his  want  of  acquaintance  with 
church  history,  or  to  say  and  unsay  in  the  same 
paragraph,  that  is  not  my  fault.  I  shall  show  the 
reader  before  I  have  done  with  his  -letters,  that 
there  are  some  other  things  that  need  a  salvo. 

What  I  said  of  the  Waldenses  being  Pedobaptists, 
and  the  proof  1  adduced,  has  not  been  set  aside  by 
what  Mr.  B.  has  adduced  from  Mr.  Jones  and 
Mosheim.  I  cannot  believe  that  Mr.  B.  himself 
thought  the  evidence  in  pomt;  for  immediately  after 
adducing  his    testimony,  he   says,    'Still  T  do  not 


240 

build  upon  this  my  views  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
No:  I  have  a  better  manual.'  Then  he  refers  to  the 
'word  of  his  king,"  and  to  the  'commission,'  'He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized.'  He  says,  'this  puts  an  end 
to  the  controversy  in  my  mind.'  This,  after  all,  is  the 
only  argument  the  Baptists  have  against  infant  bap- 
tism. 

Mr.  B.,  page  41,  drags  in  the  subject  of  ordi- 
nation, and  asks  with  a  haughty  air,  '■'■What  right 
had  Mr.  Wesley  to  ordain  bishops  and  priestsV  and 
introduces  Dr.  Cook's  book,  as  though  he  believed 
the  doctor's  views.  Now  reader,  when  Mr.  B.  and 
myself  are  done  with  the  subject  of  baptism,  if  he 
prefers  a  controversy  with  me  on  ordination  and  suc- 
cession; then  1  shall  think  it  the  most  proper  time 
to  answer  his  question  relative  to  Mr.  Wesley.  Un- 
til then,  I  refer  him  on  that  subject  to  Bishop 
Emory's  'Defence  of  our  Fathers,'  and  to  Dr.  Isaac's 
on  'Ecclesiastical  Claims.' 

On  page  42,  we  have  another  instance  of  the 
gentleman's  complaining  without  cause.  Instead  of 
quoting  my  language  in  the  case,  he  make  a  despe- 
rate effort  to  excite  public  sympathy  in  his  favor.  He 
says,  "I  am  truly  sorry  to  find  that  you  are  willing 
to  sustain  your  cause  by  an  attack  upon  my  motives." 


241 

"You  represent  me  (page  35)  as  being  ^prepared 
to  make  a  sacrifice  of  all  historical  evidence  upon 
the  altar  of  a  prejudice  that  is  both  deaf  and  blind,' 
&c.  I  represented  no  such  lliing.  I  did  not  say  a 
word  about  his  sacrificing  at  any  altar,  I  did  not 
mention  his  name  or  allude  to  him  in  the  sentence, 
the  latter  part  of  which  only  he  quotes.  And,  if  he 
had  sneered  at  the  conduct  and  feelings  of  mothers, 
who  wished  to  have  their  children  baptized  before 
they  died,  was  it  not  much  worse  in  him  to  sneer^ 
than  for  me  to  allude  to  his  having  done  it?  If  he 
had  not  done  it,  why  did  he  not  deny  it,  instead  of 
giving  his  readers  a  display  about  'the  talents,  and 
dignity  of  a  presiding  elder,'  about  'Goliath  and 
David,'  and  'policy,'  and  'common  politeness,'  &c. 

Now,  candid  reader,  I  never  supposed  the  impor- 
tant and  responsible  office  which  I  held,  when  1  an- 
swered Mr.  B.,  gave  me  any  increase  of  talents  or  dig- 
nity. If  it  did,  however,  as  he  intimates,  as  my 
term  of  service,  according  to  our  economy,  has  now 
expired,  he  will  have  the  consolation  to  know,  that 
he  contends  with  one  in  a  different  capacity,  only  an 
elder,  like  himself.  It  is  possible  Mr.  B.  may  be 
able  to  teach  me  ^policy,^  as  1  do  not  profess  to  be 
an  adept  in  craftiness.     I  suppose  the  intelligent 


M2 

reader  of  his  letters,  will  conclude  that  if  I  should 
need  lessons  in  '■common  politeness,^  it  will  be  neces- 
sary for  me  to  seek  some  other  teacher. 

Mr.  B.  invited  me  to  ivrite  on  baptism,  and  I  com- 
plied, perhaps  not  to  his  mind  or  liking.  Notwith- 
standing he  invited  me  to  write,  and  oflered  induce- 
ments to  me,  he  says,  page  43,  "I  neglected  my  dis- 
trict, in  order  to  write  these  eighty  pages.''  And 
gives  this  in  such  a  way,  as  to  lead  his  readers  to 
suppose,  that  he  quoted  it  fi'om  the  'Appeal,  page  4.' 
I  have  only  to  say,  that  this  is  a  sin  of  which  I  am 
not  guilty,  and  I  have  no  fears  that  it  will  be  im- 
puted to  me  by  those  who  know  me.  If  Mr.  B.  can 
help  his  cause  by  any  such  groundless  allegations^ 
and  can  find  that  his  conscience  will  sustain  him,  in 
being  an  'accuser  of  the  brethren,'  he  has  my  full 
consent  to  avail  himself  of  it.  It  will  occur  to  the 
reader,  however,  that,  that  must  be  a  bad  cause  which 
needs  such  support.     'I  speak  as  unto  wise  men.' 

The  case  of  Simon,  the  sorcerer,  which  I  dwelt 
upon  in  my  Appeal,  seems  to  have  presented  some 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  Mr.  B's  views.  He  touches 
it  on  page  44,  and  then  drops  it  as  though  it  burnt 
him.  He  again  comes  up  to  it,  page  47,  and,  after 
all,  blinks  the  question  involved  in  the  case,  thinks 


243 

ing,  I  suppose,  that  it  was  prudent  not  'to  follow  me' 
in  that  case,  as  it  presented  *a  two-horned  dilemma.' 

His  affecting,  on  page  44,  not  to  understand  my 
remarks  relative  to  ApoUos,  because  as  he  says,  »I 
have  not  expressed  myself  with  clearness,'  is  one  of 
his  stratagems  of  warfare.  What  I  said  relative  to 
Apollos,  and  Saul  of  Tarsus,  I  produced  plain  scrip- 
ture to  support.  As  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  his 
readers  can  have  any  tolerable  idea  of  my  argument 
on  the  subject  of  adult  candidates  for  baptism,  from 
the  manner  in  which  he  has  represented  it  in  his 
letters,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  them  to  the  first  Appeal, 
page  42,  43,  44,  45.  A  dust  may  be  raised  to  ob- 
scure the  truth,  but  it  is  hard  to  reason  successfully 
against  the  facts  stated  in  the  scriptures  of  truth. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  46,  'None  are  really  willing, 
but  those  who  are  really  converted.'  This  has  a 
strong  spice  of  '^'ew  divixity.'  The  apostle  Paul, 
I  think  in  Rom.  vii,  teaches  an  opposite  doctrine; 
showing  that  there  may  be  a  will  to  good,  while  there 
is  the  absence  of  moral  power  to  perform  it,  'For  the  good 
that  I  would,  I  do  not;  hut  the  evil  that  I  would  not,  that 
Ido.^  Mr.  B.  thinks  on  the  same  page,  that  because 
'Faith  comes  by  hearing, '^  therefore  the  falling  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  upon  Cornehus,  had  nothing  to  do 
22 


244 

with  his  believing  in  Christ;  he  should  have  recol- 
lected that  faith  is  said  to  be  'o/*  the  operation  of 
God,''  as  well  as  to  come  by  hearing.  He  says,  to 
be  sure,  page  43,  "I  believe  that  men  need  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  their  becoming  real 
believers,  genuine  converts;  but  this  influence  is  no 
where  called  'receiving  the  Holy  Ghost.'  "  Here  is 
truly  a  distinction,  without  a  difference.  Query,  is 
there  any  difference  between  'the  Spirit'  and  'the 
Holy  Ghost?'  Query,  can  a  man  be  influenced  by 
the  Spirit,  before  he  receives  the  Holy  Ghostf  But  he 
will  have  it,  that  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,  signi- 
fies his  ^extraordinary  influence.''  Joel  says,  'It 
shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  (saith  God.)  that 
I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh;'  Joel  ii, 
28,  32.  And  their  'being  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost'  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  said.  Acts  ii, 
16,  '■Is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  JoeV  Now, 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  in  Peter's  judgment,  is 
the  same  as  being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
Joel,  so  far  from  limiting  it  to  the  ^extraordinary  in- 
fluence'' of  the  Spirit,  given  in  primitive  times,  says 
'God  will  pour  it  out  upon  all  flesh.''  The  question 
to  be  settled  by  the  reader  is  a  very  plain  one,  viz: 
is  the  Spirit  in  its  extraordinary  influences  poured 


245 

out  upon  all  flesh?  To  ask  the  question  is  to  answer 
it.  The  reader  knows  that  it  is  not.  Then  you  are 
to  decide  between  the  word  of  'the  King,'  by  the 
mouth  of  St.  Peter,  (interpreting  the  words  of  Joel,) 
and  the  theory  of  Mr.  Broaddus. 

He  knew  that  I  had  pronounced  the  'repetition  of 
Christian  baptism  to  be  profane,'  page  46,  and  yet  by 
wresting  my  words  from  their  proper  connection,  he 
attempts  to  make  out  that,  ^according  to  my  show- 
ing,^ those  who  believe,  in  adult  age,  are  'fit  sub- 
jects' of  baptism,  although  they  may  have  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy.  And  adds,  'if  you  refuse  to  bap- 
tize him,  you  may  expect  him  to  leave  you,  and 
come  over  to  us,  without  our  compassing  sea  and 
land  to  proselyte  him;'  page  47.  After  all  the  at- 
tempts of  such  men  as  Mr.  B.,  and  those  who,  like 
him,  make  light  of  infant  baptism,  I  have  known  but 
very  few  intelligent  persons  who  have  been  dissatis- 
fied with  their  baptism  in  infancy.  Most  of  those 
with  whom  their  proselyting  eflTorts  have  succeeded, 
were  those  who  had  never  received  infant  baptism, 
and  had  been  accustomed  to  hear  it  ridiculed,  as 
^hahy  sprinkling,^  'a  relic  of  popery,''  &c. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  48,  in  giving  his  six  reasons  for 
opposing   'infant   baptism,'   that   he    would  'rather 


246 

grieve  over  the  distress  of  an  affectionate  mother, 
whose  tender  infants  have  died  without  the  'seahng 
ordinance,'  than  to  'sneer;'  and  adds,  'if  I  sneer  at 
all,  it  shall  be  at  the  conduct  of  those  who  require 
this  unscriptural  dedication  at  their  hands.'  Now, 
reader,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  in  future  he  will  not 
sneer  at  all,  and  I  have  some  reason  to  hope  that  he 
will  quit  that  mode  of  argument,  at  least  when  he 
writes.  I  believe  his  Letters  of  ninety  pages,  con- 
tain less  of  the  article  than  his  Sermon  of  forty -two 
pages.  This,  however,  may  have  arisen  from  the 
fact,  that  he  had  himself,  and  me,  to  attend  to,  and 
had  not  time  to  devote  to  the  distressed  women,  and 
their  dying  children. 

One  of  the  principal  among  his  six  reasons  is, 
'That  it  tends  to  defeat  the  original  design  of  bap- 
tism.' He  says,  "All  agree  that  baptism  was  de- 
signed by  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  to  separate 
his  church  from  the  world.  Now,  suppose  all  to  be 
baptized  in  infancy;  then  the  whole  world  would  be 
in  the  church,  and  the  church,  instead  of  being  'a 
congregation  of  faithful  men,'  'would  include  infidels 
and  unbelievers  of  every  description;'  their  right 
to  a  place  in  it  being  secured  to  them  by  their  bap- 
tism.^''    Candid  reader,  might  not  a  congregation  of 


247 

Baptists,  baptized  in  adult  age,  'contain  infidels  and 
unbelievers  of  every  description,'  and  would  that 
prove  aught  against  'adult  baptism?'  Just  as  much 
as  Mr.  B's  argument  does  against  infant  baptism. 
But  he  says  baptism  separates  the  church  from  the 
world,  and  that  'a  right  to  a  place  in  the  church  is 
secured  hij  baptism.''  On  what  ground,  then,  can 
the  Baptists  deprive  those  who  have  been  baptized 
of  their  right  of  church  membership,  by  expelling 
them,  however  immoral  or  infidel  they  may  be,  as 
baptism  has  separated  them  from  the  ivorld? 

His  attempt  to  connect  infant  baptism  with  pope- 
ry, is  a  stratagem  with  which  he  seems  very  fa- 
miliar; and  he  more  than  intimates,  that  the  sup- 
port of  infant  baptism  is  traditionary  only.  He  says, 
"getting  their  'pattern'  from  tradition  instead  of  the 
bible.''  This  is  a  pitiful  attempt  to  narrow  doivn 
the  evidence  for  infant  baptism,  to  what  he  knew 
was  considered  only  as  collateral,  viz:  The  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  or  tbe  practice  of  the  church  as  the 
Fathers  have  detailed  it.  Why  does  he  not  allude 
to  the  fact,  (in  connection  with  this  subject,)  that 
the  Greek  church,  having  no  connection  with  the  Pope, 
have,  notwithstanding,  always  held  and  practiced 
infant  baptism?  He  does  not  allude  to  this  plainly, 
22* 


248 

because  he  knows,  if  he  can  make  an  impression 
on  the  pubUc  mind,  that  infant  baptism  is  *a  reHc  of 
popery,'  and  supported  only  by  the  same  kind  of 
evidence  as  the  errors  of  the  Romish  church,  then 
he  will  succeed  in  exciting  a  prejudice  against  it, 
that  will  help  his  cause.  Why  does  not  this  gen- 
tleman level  his  artillery  against  popery  direct? 
Instead  of  engaging  in  this  war  against  our  chil- 
dren, why  does  he  not  use  his  influence  in  pointing 
out  and  reforming  the  errors  of  the  Romish  church, 
such  as  transubstantiation,  masses,  &;c.?  As  I  am 
not  blest  with  the  same  power  of  perceiving  the  hor- 
rible evils  which  this  gentleman  sees  growing  out 
of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  the  reader  will  not 
be  surprised  that  I  consider  the  evils  of  which  he 
complains,  as  existing  in  his  own  imagination,  and 
not  in  sober  reality.  I  am  still  of  the  opinion  that 
my  ^witty  dialogue,^  as  he  is  pleased  to  call  it,  con- 
tains 'the  head  and  front'  of  the  offence  of  this  mat- 
ter. 

On  the  subject  of  the  'baptism  of  households,'  Mr. 
B.  and  myself  are  fairly  at  issus,  especially  with  re- 
gard to  the  signification  of  the  term  oikos,  the  orig- 
inal term  used  in  those  passages  that  contain  the. 
account  of  the  baptism  of  the  households  of  Crispus, 


249 

the  jailor,  and  Lydia  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
I  will  attend  to  this  matter  of  difference^  between 
us,  when  we  have  settled  some  other  things. 
We  expressed  some  anxiety  to  know  something  of 
the  ^four  households,''  that  Mr.  B.  said  he  had  bap- 
tized; but  he  has  not  had  the  goodness  to  follow  the 
example  of  St.  Luke  in  this  matter,  and  give  us  the 
names  and  residences  of  his  Lydia' s  and  their  house- 
holds. Surely  those  remarkable  cases  might  be 
given  with  advantasije  to  the  cause,  if  indeed  he  is 
not  more  blessed  in  concealing  than  he  would  be  in 
publishing  them.     This  by  the  way. 

On  page  2fi,  he  sajs,  "In  my  Sermon,  I  did  not 
even  conjecture  who  the}^  ('Lydia's  household')  were, 
although  you  represent  me  as  supposing  many  things 
Vith  respect  to  them."  How  strange  it  is,  that  this 
gentleman  will  make  such  unqualified  declarations, 
when  the  means  for  his  conviction  are  before  the 
public.  In  his  Sermon,  page  10,  he  says,  'Who 
then  were  Lydia's  household?  Were  they  partners 
in  her  riiercantile  operations'?  This  might  be  so.  Were 
they  'journeymen  dyersl'  Possibly  they  ivere.  Or 
were  they  mere  travelling  companions?'''  &lc.  "They 
were  brethren,  whom  Paul  and  Silas  comforted 
when  they  were  about  to  leave  the  city;  and  could 


250 

any  but  believers  be  brethren  capable  of  being  com- 
forted?" Here,  the  reader  will  perceive,  is  a  string 
of  questions,  put  by  this  gentleman  in  his  Sermon, 
for  what?  why  obviously  to  convey  his  sentiments 
to  his  readers,  in  the  case,  or  to  mislead  their  minds, 
and  deceive  them.  And  yet,  after  all  these  ques- 
tions asked  by  him,  he  says,  as  you  see  above,  '/  did 
not  even  conjecture  ivho  they  we?'e,^  and  declares,  'I 
represent  him  as  supposing  many  things  with  res- 
pect to  them.'  So  I  did  represent  him  as  supposing 
some  things  at  least;  and  if  I  have  misrepresented 
him  in  representing  that  when  he  asked  those  ques- 
tions, and  answered  them,  he  honestly  meant  what 
he  said,  instead  of  intending  to  trifle  with  his  tq^lA- 
ers,  then  I  ask  pardon  for  thus  misrepresenting  the  gen- 
tleman, and  hope  he  will  extend  it  to  me  as  he  has 
kindly  offered  to  do  in  one  of  his  letters,  in  another 
case.  The  truth  is,  candid  reader,  the  Baptists  have 
always  found  it  a  difficult  task  to  make  out  a  family 
for  Lydia,  without  supposing  that  she  had  children. 
And,  in  order  to  help  themselves  in  the  case,  some 
have  supposed  one  thing,  and  some  another.  Some 
have  thought  that  some  of  the  women  of  whom  we 
read,  verse  13,  were  Lydia's  household.  Others 
discovering  that  the  word  '-brethrcn^^  occurs  in  the 


251 

40th  verse,  and  finding  that  it  would  be  hard  work 
to  transform  those  ^women''  into  ^brethren,''  have  con- 
cluded that  they  were  'partners  in  business'  with 
Lydia,  or  'journeymen  dyers.'  Mr.  B..  however, 
(as  he  can  find  an  ^express  warrant''  for  'female  com- 
munion in  every  passage  where  the  supper  is  men- 
tioned,' and,  of  course,  can  find  women,  in  the  pas- 
sage where  the  apostle  says,  "Let  a  man  examine 
himself;"  "Wherefore  ^my  brethren''  when  ye  come 
together  to  eat,"  &c.  &;c.  1  Cor.  xi,  28,  33,)  one  would 
think,  could  have  found  no  great  difficulty  in  hold- 
ing both  the  above  hypothesis,  as  'the  brethren'  com- 
forted would  surely  include  Lydia's  women,  and 
journey?rten  dyers  also. 

It  was  not  at  all  necessary  for  Mr.  B.  to  make 
such  a  flourish  about  his  'little  anecdote'  as  he  calls 
it,  and  to  put  his  readers  to  the  trouble  of  examin- 
ing the  scriptures  before  they  could  find  out  his 
meaning.  I  did,  at  Upperville,  notice  that  old  pre- 
scription of  the  Baptists  for  findiag  a  family  for 
Lydia,  by  supposing  she  had  'journeymen  dyers,' 
but  /  did  not  claim  the  honor  of  inventing  it,  as  Mr. 
B's  informant  must  have  known,  if  he  attended  to 
what  was  said.  I  gave  it  as  a  part  of  the  argument 
of  the  Baptists.     I  presume  Mr.  B.  has  heard  for 


252 

years  of  this  'choice  piece  of  wit,'  as  he  is  pleased 
to  call  it,  and  I  will  not  say,  has  often  used  it  him- 
self. The  reader  will  find  this  supposition  about 
Lydia's  dyers,  noticed  in  Watson's  Institutes,  part 
4th5  page  394,  and  to  show  that  J  do  not  claim  to 
be  father  of  this  precious  creature  of  the  imagina- 
tion, r  will  give  the  words  of  Mr.  Watson.  He 
says,  "Then,  as  if  to  mark  more  strikingly  the 
hopelessness  of  the  attempt,  to  torture  this  passage 
to  favor  an  opinion,  'her  house'  is  made  to  consist  of 
journeymen  dyers,  'employed  in  preparing  the  pur- 
ple she  sold;'  and  'to  complete  the  whole,  these  jour- 
neymen dyers,  although  not  a  word  is  said  of  their 
conversion,  nor  even  of  their  existence^  in  the  whole 
story,  are  raised  into  'the  brethren." 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  27,  "That  Timothy  and  Luke 
could  not  have  been  'the  brethren  that  Paul  comfort- 
ed,' before  he  departed,  because  'Timothy  and  Luke 
went  with  Paul  to  Beria,'  as  I  may  see,  he  says,  by 
consulting  chap,  xvii,  10  to  16.  I  have  consulted 
the  passage,  and  cannot  see  any  such  thing,  for  the 
best  of  all  reasons,  i.  e.  it  is  not  there  to  be  seen. 
Mr.  Wesley  says  in  his  note  on  the  place,  'St.  Luke 
seems  to  have  been  left  at  Philippi.'  And  if  the 
reader  will  be  at  the  pains  to  look  at  the  20th  chap- 


253 

ter,  5th  and  6th  verseo,  he  will  see  that  Luke  does 
not  fall  in  with  Paul  until  they  met  at  Troas.  He 
leaves  off  speaking  of  himself  as  one  of  Paul's  com- 
pany, in  the  16th  chapter,  and  does  not  resume  that 
style  again  until  the  20th  chapter.  So  Mr.  B.  will 
have  to  look  again,  and  if  he  sees  clearly,  he  will 
then  perceive  that  Paul  went  from  Philippi  to 
Thessilonica,  and  when  a  tumult  arose  there,  the 
brethren  sent  him  and  Silas  tj  Beria.  Surely,  can- 
did reader,  you  will  think  that  a  gentleman  who 
blunders  as  often  as  Mr.  B.  does  in  his  statements  as 
facts,  ought  either  to  be  more  careful,  or  less  con- 
fdent  ill  making  them!! 

x\fter  carefully  noticing  his  third  effort  to  explain 
this  case,  so  as  to  operate  against  the  baptism  of 
children,  I  am  entirely  satisfied  that  the  solution  I 
gave  in  my  'Appeal'  is  not  to  be  set  aside  by  Mr. 
B.  at  least,  as  I  propose  further  to  demonstrate. 

He  has  so  arranged  the  words  on  page  27,  as  to 
cause  them  to  make  an  utterly  false  impression  on 
the  mind  of  the  reader.  I  do  not  say  that  he  intend- 
ed this.  I  do  not  speak  of  his  motives,  but  of  the 
fact.  He  says,  "1  do  think,  if  your  'wise  men'  will 
but  consider  that  Paul  and  Silas  went  into  the  house 
of  Lydia,  and  'comforted  the  brethren,'  it  will  ap- 


254 

pear  to  them  much  more  improbable'  that  they  were 
visiting  brethren,  than  that  they  belonged  to  the 
family  of  Lydia.''  The  reader  will  observe  he 
puts  the  words  into  the  house  of  Lydia,  in  italics, 
then  connects  them  with  'comforted  the  brethren'  by 
the  copulative  conjunction  'and;'  I  aver,  upon  the  au- 
thority of  common  sense,  that  no  man  in  reading 
the  passage  in  Acts,  without  note,  or  comment,  would 
ever  receive  from  it  any  such  impression  as  his  man- 
ner of  presenting  it  gives.  The  words  of  Luke  are, 
'•And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into  the 
house  of  Lydia:  andiohen  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they 
comforled  them,  and  departed.     Acts  xvi,  40. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  the  matter  at 
issue  between  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  Taylor,  the  editor  of 
Calmet's  Dictionary,  as  quoted  by  myself.  Mr.  B. 
says  he  does  not  know  who  this  gentleman  is,  nor 
has  he  ever  heard  before  of  the  passage  I  quoted. 
Has  that  gentleman  never  read  the  celebrated  de- 
bate between  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  and  Mr. 
Maccalla,  which  took  place  in  Kentucky.  I  should 
suppose  he  has,  from  the  great  similarity  between 
some  of  Mr.  B's  and  Mr.  Cs  criticisms.  I:i  this 
debate  Mr.  Taylor  is  referred  to  as  authority,  and 
his  and  Dr.  Rice's  criticism  was   adopted  by  Mr. 


255 

Maccalla.  Mr.  Campbell  pronounced  the  criticism 
a  ^refuge  of  lies.^  Mr.  B.  says  it  is  *a  palpable 
misrepresentation.^  This  criticism  of  Mr.  Taylor's 
is  not  only  sustained  by  Dr.  Rice,  Mr.  Maccalla,  and 
Mr.  Ralston,  but  in  substance  by  Peter  Edwards 
also.  I  might  rest  the  argument  here,  with  confi- 
dence of  its  being  satisfactory  to  the  candid;  but 
shall  proceed  to  examine  some  of  the  evidence  that 
Mr.  B.  has  produced,  in  order  to  show,  (as  he  says,) 
that  Mr.  Taylor  has  led  me  'completely  astray.'  He 
says,  "I  will  not  furnish  'three  hundred'  instances, 
nor  even  'fifty,'  but  I  will  furnish  enough  to  satisfy 
the  most  skeptical,  that  the  sacred  writers  used  the 
two  words  interchangeably.'' 

The  first  case  he  mentions  is  Luke  viii,  41,  and 
51,  where  there  is  an  account  of  raising  the  little 
daughter  of  Jairus.  In  the  41st  verse,  there  is  an 
evident  allusion  to  the  family,  as  the  family  needed 
his  help,  and  the  word  is  oikos.  In  the  51st  verse, 
the  dwelling  is  spoken  of,  and  the  word  is  oikia, 
confirming  Taylor's  criticism.  Luke  x,  5,  is  Mr. 
B's  next  proof, — 'Into  whatsoever  house  ye  enter, 
say,  peace  be  to  this  house.'  Here  again  in  the  first 
part  of  the  verse  the  dwelling  is  meant;  in  the  last 

part  of  the  verse  the  family  is  meant;  because  Christ 
23 


256 

did  not  command  his  apostles  to  say,  peace  be  to  the 
timbers,  or  brick,  or  stone,  that  formed  the  dwelling 
into  which  they  entered,  but  peace  be  to  the  family, 
the  oikos.  This  more  fully  confirms  the  view  given 
in  my  former  argument.  Mr.  B.  says,  'Jesus  calls 
his  father's  house  both  oikos  and  o'lkia,''  and  refers  to 
John  ii,  16;  xvi,  2.  In  the  first  passage  the  temple 
is  spoken  of,  and  the  word  is  oikos ^  because  in  this 
case  the  container  is  put  for  the  contained,  as  the 
temple  was  the  residence  of  the  congregation,  'the 
visible  family  of  God.'  In  the  other  passage  he  re- 
fers to,  there  is  no  such  word  in  my  bible,  and  I  use 
the  'common  version.'  It  is  possible  he  made  a  mis- 
take, and  referred  to  John  xvi,  instead  xiv,  2, — there 
the  word  is  oikia,  but  it  refers  to  heaven,  and  I  sup- 
pose the  reader  will  conclude  that  the  earthly  tem- 
ple and  the  invisible  heaven  are  not  exactly  the  same 
thing. 

The  next  case  he  adduces  is  the  case  of  the  oikos 
of  Stephanas,  1  Cor.  i,  16,  and  xvi,  15, — the  apos- 
tle says,  ^I  baptized  also  the  household  [oikos)  of 
Stephanas;'  and  in  the  close  of  that  epistle  he  men- 
tions the  household  (oikia)  of  Stephanas;  and  says 
to  the  Corinthian  church,  'ye  know  the  house  of 
Stephanas,'  &;c      In  referring  to  the  baptism  of  Ste- 


257 

phanas  and  his  family,  he  uses  the  word  oikos,  but 
in  referring  to  the  family's  having  'addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,'  he  uses  the  word 
'  oikia,  evidently  alluding  to  the  whole  domestic  es- 
tablishment. This  is  the  same  course  pursued  by 
St.  Luke  in  Acts  xvi,  32,  'And  they  spake  unto  him 
(the  jailor)  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that 
were  in  his  house,'  (oikia,) — doubtless  the  whole  do- 
mestic establishment  were  summoned  to  the  preach- 
ing, and  heard  the  word  of  the  Lord,  but  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  one  inquiring  about  salvation  but  the 
jailor.  And  when  the  apostle  said,  'believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;'  he  added,  'and  thou  shalt  be 
saved  and  thy  house'  (oiJcos,) — and  he  and  all  his 
were  baptized  straightway,  and  he  brought  Paul  and 
Silas  out  of  the  outer  prison,  where  the  preaching 
took  place,  into  his  family  apartment,  called  by  Luke 
his  oikos.  Where  the  baptism  of  Lydia's  family  is 
spoken  of  in  the  15th  verse,  the  same  word  is  used. 
'And  when  she  was  baptized  and  her  household 
(oikos,y  &c.,  evidently  her  family  and  her  children 
are  meant,  as  scholars  have  said,  and  as  we  shall 
show  more  fully  hereafter.  The  next  evidence  Mr. 
B.  adduces,  is  John  xi,  20  and  31 — where  the  dwell- 
ing of  Mary  and  Martha  is  called  both  oikos  and 


258 

oikia;  but  this  is  no  proof  against  Mr.  Taylor's  criti- 
cism,  for  he  says,  'when  oikos  is  spoken  ofpersonSy 
it  denotes  a  family  of  children;'  but  Mr.  B's  proof 
does  not  present  a  case  in  point,  for  the  passage  re- 
fers not  to  ^persons''  but  altogether  to  a  dwelling 
house.  I  suppose  the  intelligent  reader  can  see  the 
difference. 

After  adducing  the  above  quotations,  addressing 
me,  he  says,  "How  conclusively,  Mr.  S.  do  these 
passages  show  the  fallacy  of  the  distinction  which 
your  'editor'  makes  between  oikos  and  oikia.^^ 
Then,  thinking  I  presunie,  that,  conclusive  as  the 
evidence  he  had  given  already  might  be,  it  would 
not  be  amiss  to  'make  certainty  more  certain,'  he 
adds  an  evidence  or  two  more.  One  we  will  notice, 
the  other  is  not  material,  as  it  proves  nothing  to 
the  point,  and  we  have  noticed  it  above.  The  one 
we  remark  upon  is  Matt  x,  xiii,  'If  the  house  (oikia) 
be  worthy,'  &;c.  I  suppose  this  refers,  as  I  said 
above,  to  the  whole  domestic  establishment. 

In  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  x,  5,  the  words 
are,  'Into  whatsoever  house  (oikia)  ye  enter,  say 
peace  be  to  this  house,'  (oikos) — the  minister  enters 
the  dwelling  (oikia)  and  says  peace  be  to  the  family, 
(oikos,)  these  words  differing  sonietimes  in  passages 


259 

that  are  parallel,  may  have  arisen  out  of  the  care- 
j  essness  of  transcribers,  for  I  suppose  they  could  as 
easily  mistake  in  transcribing,  and  put  one  of  those 
words  for  the  other,  as  Mr.  B.  could  mistake,  as  the 
reader  has  seen  above,  in  referring  to  a  text  for 
oikia,  where  no  such  word  exists.  I  do  not  blame 
Mr.  B.,  nor  would  I  blame  a  transcriber,  for  an  un- 
intentional mistake.  Having  noticed  Mr.  B's  evi- 
dence at  length,  1  shall  now  proceed  to  adduce 
some  additional  testimony  in  favor  of  my  view. 

I  do  not  deny  that  oikos  is  used  figuratively  for  a 
dwelling  house,  because  in  such  cases,  the  container 
is  put  for  the  contained,  as  is  very  commonly  the 
case  in  our  own  language. 

The  first  proof  I  shall  adduce  is  from  Num.  xvi, 
27  to  32,  "And  Dathan  and  Abiram  came  out,  and 
stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents,  and  their  wives  and 
sons,  and  their  little  children.  And  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  earth  opened  her  mouth  and  swallowed  them 
up,  and  their  houses  {oijious.y  Swallowed  up  their 
little  children  as  part  of  their  houses. 

But  it  is  used  to  signify  infants  exclusively.     See 
Deut.  XXV,  9.     Where  the  law  is  alluded  to  which 
required  a  brother  to  take  the  widow  of  his  deceas- 
ed brother,  and  raise  up  a  family  for,  or  to,  his  de- 
23=^ 


260 

ceased  brother.  If  he  refused  to  comply  according 
to  the  law,  then  the  widow  was  to  loose  his  shoe, 
spit  in  his  face,  and  say,  "So  shall  it  be  done  unto 
that  man,  that  will  not  build  up  his  brother's  house 
(oikon).^^  But  how  was  the  brother's  house  to  be 
^built  up?^  By  his  raising  a  family  of  children,  who 
were  to  be  esteemed  the  children  of  the  deceased 
brother. 

Again,  Ruth  iv,  11,  12,  "The  Lord  make  the 
woman  that  is  to  come  into  thine  house,  or  dwelling 
place,  like  Rachel,  and  like  Leah,  which  two  did 
build  up  the  house  (oikon)  of  Israel.  And  let  thy 
house  be  like  the  house  (oikos)  of  Phares,  which 
Tamar  bare  unto  Judah  of  the  seed  which  the  Lord 
will  give  thee  of  this  young  woman."  How  was  the 
house  of  Israel  built  up  by  Rachel  and  by  Leah? 
Certainly  by  the  children  born  to  them  from  time 
to  time?  And  how  was  the  house  of  Boaz  to  become 
like  the  house  of  Phares,  but  by  the  infants  to  be 
born  to  him  by  Ruth,  and  which  are  styled  'the 
seed  of  this  young  woman?'  One  more  example 
from  the  Old  Testament  may  be  quite  sufficient, 
Psalm  cxiii,  9, — "He  maketh  the  barren  woman  to 
keep  house  (oikoj)  and  to  be  a  joyful  mother  of  chil- 
dren."    In  this  passage  every  unbiased  reader  will 


261 

see,  that  the  barren  woman's  heart  was  to  be  made 
glad  by  infants  to  be  given  to  her  by  the  Lord,  and 
who  were  to  constitute  what  is  called  her  ^house'  or 
family.  Now,  to  apply  the  metaphorical  use  of  the 
word  house^  as  an  argument  for  infant  baptism.  We 
read  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia 
and  her  house,  and  of  the  jailor  and  his  house,  and 
of  Stephanas  and  his  house,  or  household.  The 
question  now  is,  what  did  the  inspired  penmen  mean, 
by  the  word  ^house'  in  the  record  they  have  left  us 
of  these  and  other  family  baptisms?  They  were 
well  acquainted  with  the  meaning  of  the  term  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  sometimes  signifying  children  se- 
parate from  their  parents,  and  little  children^  and 
infants  exclusively.  The  Jews  and  Greeks,  to  whom 
they  wrote,  attached  the  same  idea  to  the  word. 
When  the  Jews  then  read  that  Lydia  and  her  house 
(oikos) — the  jailor  and  his  house  (oikos) — and  the 
house  (oikos)  of  Stephanas  were  baptized,  what 
would  they,  or  what  could  they  understand  by  the 
word  in  those  several  passages?  Would  they  not 
understand  it  according  to  its  most  natural  import, 
its  most  generally  received  sense?  i.  e.  a  man  or 
woman's  children  by  immediate  descent  or  adoption, 
infants  included?     But  if  the  system  of  the  Baptists 


262 

is  scriptural,  and  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  then 
the  inspired  penmen  have  used  a  word  calculated  to 
deceive  both  Jews  and  Greeks.  This  is  not  to  be 
admitted!!  ^ I  speak  as  unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what 
I  say.'' 

We  shall  now  adduce  a  few  other  texts,  from  the 
New  Testament,  on  this  point. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  where  we  find  what 
Mr.  Booth  and  Baptist  writers  generally  call  'the 
law  of  baptism,'  carried  out  in  the  practice  of  the 
apostles,  the  word  oikos  occurs  twenty-three  times, 
and  is  always  the  ivord  used  where  families  are 
spoken  of  as  having  been  baptized.  Chap,  xi,  12, 
13, 14,  the  angel  said  to  Cornelius,  "Call  for  Simon, 
whose  sirname  is  Peter,  who  shall  tell  thee  words 
whereby  thou,  and  all  thy  house  {oikos,)  shall  be 
saved.''  See  Acts  xvi,  15,  31,  34.  And  in  the  18th 
chapter,  it  is  used  in  a  way  calculated  to  show,  that 
Luke  did  not  consider  it  as  much  like  oikia  as  the 
'English  word  brothers'  is  like  'brethren,'  7th  and 
8th  verses,  "And  he  departed  thence,  and  entered 
into  a  certain  man's  house  {oikia)  named  Justus,  one 
that  worshipped  God,  whose  house  {oikia)  joined 
bard  to  the  synagogue."  And  when  he  speaks  in 
the  next  verse  of  a  family,  he  drops  the  word  which 


263 

he  had  used  twice  in  the  7th  verse,  and  adopts  the 
word  which  is  used  in  all  the  cases  where  family 
haptism  is  spoken  of.  "And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler 
of  the  synagogue  believed  on  the  Lord,  with  all  his 
house  (oikos:)  and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing, 
believed  and  were  baptized."  In  Ileb.  xi,  7,  it  is 
said  that  "Noah  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of 
his  house,"  (oikos.)  We  know  that  Noah  and  his 
family  only  are  meant  in  this  passage. 

Having  already  consumed  more  time  on  these 
words,  than  I  could  well  spare  to  a  single  point  in 
the  controversy,  I  must  bring  this  part  of  the  gene- 
ral argument  to  a  close.  My  only  apology  to  the 
reader,  for  having  said  so  much  on  it,  is  found  in  the 
confident  air  with  which  Mr.  B.  denounced  this 
criticism  of  my  ^editor'  as  he  calls  him.  I  cannot 
do  better  than  close  this  article  in  the  words  of  Mr. 
Taylor,  "The  natural  import  of  the  term  oikos, 
family,  includes  children  of  all  ages.  In  proof  I 
offer  you  fifty  examples;  i^ fifty  are  not  sufficient,  I 
offer  a  hundred;  if  a  hundred  is  not  sufficient,  two 
hundred;  li  two  hundred  are  not  sufficient, ybz/r  hun- 
dred. I  affirm  that  oikos  very  often  expresses 
the  presence  of  infants.  Of  this  I  offer  you  fifty  ex- 
amples, and  if  you  admit  classical   instances,  fifty 


264 

more.  I  tell  you  also,  that  somewhat  more  than 
three  hundred  instances  have  been  examined,  and 
have  proved  perfectly  satisfactory."  Concluding 
Facts,  (fee,  p.  13,  14. 

The  intelligent  reader  can  now  judge,  whether  I 
have  built  upon  '•mere  presumption,"^  as  Mr.  B  says  I 
have,  (in  maintaining  'infant  baptism'  from  the  cases 
of  household  or  family  baptism,  recorded  in  the  ora- 
cles of  God,)  or  whether  I  have  built  upon  the  solid 
foundation  of  immutable  truth,  and  incontrovertible 
facts.  To  all,  to  every  candid  parent  in  the  land,  I 
would  address  myself,  and  say  ^your^  children's  ^ad- 
vocate must  be  yours.'* 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  review  of  Mr.  B's  letters 
relative  to  the  'mode  of  baptism,'  allow  me  a  re- 
mark upon  the  closing  paragraph  of  his  eleventh  let- 
ter. He  says,  "I  will  not  sum  up  what  I  have  writ- 
ten, lest  you  should  think  of  my  summary,  as  1  do 
of  yours."  This  is  in  keeping  with  his  first  reason, 
for  not  being  willing  to  engage  in  an  oral  discussion 
with  me.  If  he  had  summed  up  what  he  had  said 
in  his  letters,  his  readers  could  have  seen  more 
easily  how  small  a  portion  of  my  argument  he  had 
even  attempted  to  answer.  But  I  forget  myself 
when  I  talk  about  arguments  for  Pedobaptist  vievis, 


265 

Mr.  B.  sajs,  Hhere  are  none  in  the  wide  compass  of  creation.^ 
But  our  readers  will  not  believe  this.  They  will 
give  the  word  of  God  its  plain,  unsophisticated  mean- 
ing, when  their  sight  is  not  obscured  by  the  dust 
raised  by  those  who  'darken  counsel.'  And  know- 
ings as  the  public  do,  that  the  term  children  means  infants 
as  well  as  larger  children;  and  knowing  also,  that  in  any 
given  district  of  counti-y,  a  majority  of  families  have  in- 
fants, or  young  children  in  them,  they  naturally  conclude 
that  there  must  have  been  infants  in  some  of  those  families 
baptized  by  the  apostles. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  some  things  in 
the  remaining  ten  letters,  in  which  Mr.  B.  notices 

the    *MODE  OF  BAPTISM.' 

He  begins,  on  page  51,  with  the  same  fancy, 
(which  we  replied  to  in  the  former  argument,)  about 
the  distinction  between  inoral  and  positive  institu- 
tions, and  the  explicit  and  ^minutely  defined''  direc- 
tions for  the  observance  of  the  latter.  He  says — 
"To  me  it  is  most  obvious,  that  a.  positive  institution 
must  be  minutely  defined  by  the  law-giver,  and 
obeyed  to  the  very  letter  by  the  subject,  or  else  it 
can  be  of  no  service  whatever."  Observe,  reader! 
^minutely  defined.^  He  refers  to  Leviticus,  xiv, 
where  the  ceremony  of  cleansing  a  leper  is  detailed. 
Why  did  he  not  quote  a  little  more  of  the  ceremony 


266 

than  tlie  ^dipping  of  the  finger  of  the  priest'  in  the 
oil?  If  he  had,  the  reader  would  have  seen  a  case 
corroborating  our  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism. 
For,  although  the  leprous  man  washed  his  clothes 
and  his  person  in  water,  before  he  was  presented  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  yet 
this  he  did  himself  in  private;  but  when  the  priest, 
the  minister  of  God,  went  to  perform  the  purifica- 
tion, or  cleansing  of  the  leper,  both  the  blood  and 
OIL  WERE  SPRINKLED,  and  in  the  same  manner,  was 
a  leprous  house  to  be  cleansed.  See  vs.  6,  7,  8,  9, 
11,16,19,51. 

As  I  had  asked  for  ^detailed,  explicit  directions 
about  the  manner  of  performing  the  positive  insti- 
tutes^ of  circumcision  and  the  Lord's  supper,  Mr. 
B.  seems  to  feel  bound  to  give  them,  and  sets  him- 
self to  work  to  furnish  the  explicit  directions  in  both 
those  cases.  On  the  institute  of  circumcision,  he 
says,  "Read  Gen.  xvii,  11.  I  hope  you  will  not 
suppose  that  any  thing  would  have  passed  for  cir- 
cumcision, except  what  is  there  required."  I  wish 
Mr.  B.  had  more  frequently  given  the  words  of  the 
passages  he  refers  to,  and  this  he  might  have  done 
(by  leaving  out  soine  of  his  many  complaints,)  with- 
out increasing  the  numbei  of  pages  in  his  reply^ 


267 

Then  his  letters  would  have  had  in  them  fewer  of 
the  words  of  man,  and  more  of  the  words  of  God* 
This,  by  the  way.  As  he  did  not  give  the  reader 
the  words  of  the  law  of  circumcision,  I  shall  have 
to  do  it,  here  they  are — "A/tc^  ye  shall  circumcise 
the  flesh  of  your  foreskin;  and  it  shall  be  a  token 
of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.''"'  Here  are 
what  he  calls  *^explicit  directions, ^"^  a  ^^minutely  de- 
fined" positive  institute.  Does  the  reader  see  any 
explicitness  in  the  directions?  Do  they  say  who  is 
to  perform  the  rite?  Perhaps  Mr.  B.  will  say  the 
father  was  to  be  priest  in  the  case.  Very  good. 
Then  none  other  was  qualified  to  perform  it,  for  he 
says,  Hhe  law  must  be  obeyed  to  the  very  letter;^ 
but  then  this  will  be  opposed  to  the  facts.  For  al- 
though Abraham  performed  the  rite  for  Ishmael  and 
the  men  of  his  house,  v.  23,  yet  it  is  evident  from 
V.  24,  that  he  was  not  the  operator  in  his  own  case. 
It  is  again  far  more  evident,  from  Ex.  iv,  25,  and 
Luke  i,  59,  that  neither  Moses  nor  Zacharias  per- 
formed the  rite  upon  their  sons,  although  the  fathers 
were  present  in  each  case.  1  suppose,  candid  reader, 
you  will  hardly  receive  views  that  contradict  facts. 
So,  it  seems  this  law  does  not  'minutely  define'  who 

was  to  be  the  operator  in  keeping  the  law  of  circum- 
24 


268 

cision.  I  ask  again,  with  what  kind  of  instrument 
was  the  rite  to  be  performed?  Was  it  a  knife? 
Perhaps  I  shall  be  told  it  was.  But  then,  a  knife 
could  not  have  been  necessary  to  the  valid  perform- 
ance of  the  rite,  for  the  wife  of  Moses  performed 
the  rite  upon  her  sOn  with  a  '■sharp  stone.''  Ex.  iv, 
25.  I  ask  again, — Where  was  the  rite  to  be  per- 
formed, and  at  what  time  of  the  day,  or  night?  The 
law  does  not  specify;  Ishmael  received  the  rite  in 
his  father's  house;  Moses's  son  received  it  at  an  inn, 
and  the  people  of  Israel  were  circumcised  in  the 
camp.  Josh,  v,  8.  Now,  I  ask  the  candid  reader, 
what  has  become  of  Mr.  D's  ^minutely  defined,'' 
^explicit  directions,''  of  the  law  of  the  positive  in- 
stitute of  circumcision?  They  have  vanished  out  of 
sight,  and  I  incline  to  think  you  will  not  be  able  to 
discern  them  again,  without  the  aid  of  Mr.  B's  mi- 
croscopic glasses.  But  let  us  examine  a  little,  his 
^explicit  directions''  about  the  Lord's  supper.  P.  52, 
he  says — "You  inquire  also,  whether  the  Scriptures 
give  specific  directions  about  the  manner  of  attend- 
ing to  the  Lord's  supper.  I  answer,  yes,  very  ex- 
plicit. Read  1  Cor.  xi,  23  to  26,  and  you  will  see 
such  a  description,  as  can  leave  us  at  no  loss  what- 
ever on  the  subject."     In  this  case  also,  he  does  not 


269 

favor  us  with  the  words  that  contain  the  h^ery  ex- 
plicit  directions.  Here  they  are  from  St.  Paul, — 
"/br  1  have  received  of  the  Lord,  ihat  which  also  I  de- 
livered unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread:  And  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  Take,  eat;  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of 
me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he 
had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  JVew  Testament  in 
my  blood:  this  do  ye,  as  oft  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
of  me.  For  05  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.''^  Does  the 
reader  see  any  ^very  explicit  directions''  here?  Does  this 
passage  specify  the  posture  in  which  we  are  to  receive 
the  supper?  No — hence  some  take  it  kneeling, 
some  sitting,  and  others  standing.  Does  it  specify 
the  kind  of  bread  to  be  used,  whether  leavened  or 
unleavened,  whether  wheat  or  some  other  kind?  I 
answer,  no.  Does  it  specify  what  kind  of  wine  is 
to  be  used,  whether  red  or  white,  fermented,  or  un- 
fermented  wine?  The  reader  knows  it  does  not. 
Does  it  specify  the  quantity  of  each,  that  is  to  be 
used  by  the  communicant?  T  answer  again  it  does 
not.  And  yet  our  Lord  and  his  Apostle,  have  said, 
'This  do.'  The  simple  fact,  that  bread  and  wine 
are  to  be  taken,  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  is  all  the 


270 

specification  there  is  in  the  passage.  Water  is  to 
be  applied  to  the  subject  in  the  institute  of  baptism, 
and  bread  and  wine  are  to  be  used  in  the  Lord's 
supper.  So  that  Mr.  B's  'specified  directions,'  'mi- 
nutely defined,'  turn  out  to  be  of  the  same  character 
with  his  'express  warrant,'  his  Thus  saith  the  Lord; 
for  female  communion.  I  remark,  by  the  way,  if 
the  Baptists  were  never  to  immerse  any  person,  until 
they  find  in  the  'law  of  baptism,'  as  they  call  it, 
^minutely  defined  directions'  for  the  observance  ©f 
the  rite;  we  should  soon  have  an  end  to  baptism 
by  immersion*  But  when  they  are  pressed  here, 
they  say  the  Scriptures  know  nothing  for  baptism, 
but  'believers'  immersion,'  and  when  you  demand  the 
proof,  they  fly  to  the  word  baptizo^  and  tell  you 
gravely,  that  the  ^explicit  directions'  are  all  in  that 
word.  They  take  care,  however,  not  to  go  to  the 
original  meaning  of  deipnon  the  word  used,  1  Cor. 
xi,  20,  for  the  supper.  Because  that  signifies  not 
simply  a  meal,  but  was  used  for  the  principal  meal 
among  the  Greeks.  They  know  there  is  no  con- 
sistency, in  crying  out  for  much  water  in  one  sacra- 
ment, and  being  content  to  consider  the  law  of  the 
other  sacrament  fully  complied  with,  in  eating  a 
small  piece  of  bread  and  lasting  wine.       We  are 


271 

told  by  a  certain  Baptist  writer,  who  saw  the  diffi- 
culty here  hinted  at;  "It  is  not  necessary  to  take 
much  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper,  in  order 
to  comply  with  the  command,  'Do  this' — because 
the  action  is  the  same,  in  eating,  whether  we  eat 
little  or  much.''^  I  answer — in  baptism  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  use  much  water,  because  the  element  is 
the  same,  whether  we  use  little  or  much;  unless,  in- 
deed, it  can  be  shown,  that  there  is  a  charm  in  the 
elements,  used  in  the  sacraments.  If  this  can  be 
shown,  then  the  larger  the  quantity  the  better,  used 
in  either!!!  I  suppose,  however,  this  will  not  be  at- 
tempted, especially  by  those  who  profess  to  be  so 
much  afraid  of  encouraging  popish  errors!!! 

It  might,  we  think,  be  easily  shown,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  position  laid  down  by  Mr.  B.  relative  to 
^positive  institutes'*  and  the  necessity  of  a  literal 
compliance  ivith  every  circumstance  connected  with 
their  institution,  that  no  denomination  of  Christians, 
the  Baptists  not  excepted,  do  at  this  day,  properly 
observe  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper.  1.  It 
was  instituted  at  night.  2.  Only  men  were  present 
at  it.  3.  Unleavened  bread  doubtless  was  used, 
because  the  Jews  kept  no  other  kind  in  their  houses 

at  the   time  of  the  passover.     4.  It  was  celebrated 
24* 


in  an  upper  room.  5.  It  was  celebrated  at  a  par- 
ticular time  of  the  year,  &c.  Now,  Mr.  B.  says — 
"./^  ^positive  institute^  must  be  minutely  defined^  by  the 
lawgiver,  and  obeyed  to  the  very  letter,  by  the  subject,  or 
else  it  can  be  of  no  service  whatever"  This,  the  reader 
will  observe,  stands  opposed  to  Mr.  B's  own  prac- 
tice, in  the  observance  of  the  sacrament  of  the  sup- 
per. This  literal  conformity,  he  did  not  intend 
should  be  pressed  against  his  own  practice.  He 
only  mentioned  it  in  connection  with  circumcision, 
and  the  Lord's  supper,  because,  in  my  former  argu- 
ment, I  had  placed  those  cases  against  his  theory. 
So  1  return  to  the  gentleman  one  of  the  many  com- 
pliments of  his  'letters'— '2%e  legs  of  the  lame  are  not. 
equal.'' 

Mr.  B.  repeats  a  part  of  what  he  said  in  his  stric- 
tures, and  sermon,  about  king  James,  the  bishops, 
and  translators,  and  says,  *the  present  version,  with 
all  its  defects,  is  against  sprinkling.^  And  adds,  *I 
only  complain  that  it  is  not  more  against  sprinkling, 
than  it  is.'  As  the  Baptists  have  withdrawn  from 
the  'American  Bible  Society,'  because  the  board 
would  not  appropriate  funds  to  make  a  different 
translation  in  a  foreign  tongue  from  the  common 
version,  I  suppose  they  will  soon  have  a  version  of 
their  own,  and  this  gentleman  may  then  be  suited.. 


273 

It  is  due  to  many  of  the  liberal  minded  Baptists, 
however,  to  say,  that  they  disapprove  of  this  mea- 
sure. I  suppose  they  think  well  of  the  'common 
version,'  as  did  the  learned  Drs.  Middleton  and 
Doddridge;  and  Dr.  John  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  al- 
though he  held  a  different  creed  from  that  held  by 
the  bishops. 

I  made  no  charge  against  Mr.  B.  relative  to  the 
translators  and  bishops,  which  is  not  fully  sustained 
by  his  own  statements.  He  represented,  in  the  ser- 
mon, p.  28,  that  the  translators  "were  so  fully  convinced 
that  the  Greek  verb  baptizo,  ought  to  be  translated  im- 
merse, that  we  should  have  had  it  immerse,  in  our  version, 
but  for  the  interposition  of  the  bishops."  In  the  Stric- 
tures, p.  13,  he  says — "But  our  translators,  bei:>jg  all 
OPPOSED  TO  IMMERSION,  it  is  no  wonder  they  did  not 
render  the  word  into  English."  And  yet  he  says — "i 
have  not  charged  the  translators  and  bishops  with  making 
a  translation  to  favor  sprinkling."  And  says  of  me, 
that  I  have,  in  this  case,  "dealt  freely  in  the  article  of 
misrepresentation."  The  candid  reader  will  be  able  to 
judge,  from  his  words  given  above,  whether  /  have 
*borne  false  witness'  against  him.  Or  whether  he 
has  not  denied  his  own  charge,  formerly  made  against 
those  'dead  men;*  "If  he  is  ashamed  of  it  now,  it  is  well!" 
It  would  be  well  also,  if  he  would  examine  always, 


274 

what  he  has  said,  before  he  enters  his  flat  denial  of 
things  alleged  against  him.  It  is  unpleasant  to  me, 
to  be  compelled,  in  self-defence,  thus  to  expose  the 
gentleman's  contradictions  of  his  own  statements. 

On  p.  54,  he  says,  that  the  reason  why  I  have 
found  it  necessary  to  preach  so  often  on  baptism,  is, 
that  'the  people  have  not  learning  and  ingenuity 
enough  to  find  sprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptism  in 
the  present  version,'  of  the  scriptures.  And  con- 
cludes that,  as  "many  of  our  people  are,  at  one  time  m^ 
another,  uneasy  about  baptism;  there  must  be  some  ^glo- 
rious uncertainty,^  about  the  sprinkling  and  pouring.'''' 
And  he  judged  this  last  sentence  so  important,  that 
it  was  necessary  to  call  attention  to  it,  by  marking 
it  with  two  0:^.=i;;:Q. 

It  is  true  candid  reader,  that  some  Pedobaptist  peo- 
ple get  uneasy  sometimes  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
by  immersion;  I  have  not,  however,  known  of  many 
cases  of  the  kind,  and  when  they  have  occurred,  so 
far  as  my  observation  has  extended,  their  uneasiness 
has  not  arisen  half  so  often,  from  reading  the  Bible, 
as  from  having  enjoyed  the  company,  or  conversation 
of  some  Jesuitical  immersionist.  And  where  our 
people  have  the  Bible,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  to  guide 
them,  and  none  to  perplex  their   minds,  we  hardly 


275 

ever  find  it  necessary  to  speak  of  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism. We  have  passed  whole  years  in  some  places, 
without  preaching  one  sermon  on  the  subject;  where 
our  people  had  not  been  exposed  to  the  'slight  of  men' 
who  seek  on  all  occasions  to  make  proselytes  to  opin- 
ions about  ceremonies,  with  more  zeal  than  to  teach 
men,  how  to  'worship  God  in  spirit  and  in 
truth!!!' 

He  closes  his  12th  letter,  with  an  anecdote  about 
an  Indian,  who  had  a  bible  given  him,  by  a  Pedobap- 
tist  missionary,  which  became  instrumental  in  his 
salvation, — the  missionary  meeting  with  the  Indian 
afterwards,  proposed  to  have  water  brought  in  a  pitch' 
er,  to  a  meeting  house,  in  order  to  baptize  the  In- 
dian, the  latter  was  astonished  at  the  proposition;  be- 
cause as  he  said  the  book  told  him,  Hhat  they  bap- 
tized in  a  river,and  where  there  was  much  water,  and 
were  buried  in  baptism.'  And  he  told  the  missionary 
^he  must  give  him  another  bookJ* 

Now  candid  reader,  this  same  Indian  story  looks 
very  much  like  it  was  made  for  effect,  and  I  strongly 
suspect  that  some  one  of  a  lighter  skin,  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  its  fabrication.  It  may  have  ^Esau's 
hands'  but  it  certainly  '■has  Jacob'' s  voice,^  and  it  may 
impose  upon  some  blind  Isaac.    Mr.  B.  says,  he  'does 


276 

not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  the  story.'  I  judge  this 
Indian  story  to  be  of  a  piece  with  the  'negro'  story 
which  he  tells  in  his  letters;  and  the  story  about  the 
lady  who  was  visited  by  several  ministers,  whose 
husband  finally  'concluded  that  it  was  safest  for  her 
to  be  immersed.^  All  such  stories  are  but  tubs  for 
the  whale.  T\^e  could  tell  some  story  too,  of  an  op- 
posite description,  if  we  did  not  consider  such  busi- 
ness degrading  to  the  understanding  of  the  writer, 
and  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of  the  reader. 

But  suppose  this  'Indian  story'  is  literally  true, 
what  then? — is  it  not  extremely  likely,  that  he  had, 
previouslv  to  seeinor  the  missionary  at  the  meetinor 
house,  fallen  in  w^ith  some  wandering  'new-light 
Baptist'  in  the  'Great  Valley,'  and  had  taken  a  les- 
son or  two  from  him?''  Or,  if  it  occurred  recently, 
possibly  he  may  have  met  with  a  copy  of  Mr.  B's  '^/rj'c- 
/j<re5,'  if  any  copies  have,  by  any  means,  reached  the 
'Valley'  of  the  Mississippi.  For  I  am  very  certain 
that  the  Indian,  reading  in  the  'book'  which  the  mis- 
sionary gave  him,  of  the  baptisms  of  the  jailor,  Saul, 
and  Cornelius  and  his  family,  saw  nothing  about 
either  'a  river,'  or  'much  water.'  And  suppose  the 
missionary  did  propose  to  have  water  brought  in  'o 
pitcher,''  he  might  have  pleaded  a  very  good  prece- 


277 

dent  for  his  practice.  For,  as  early  as  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  ''when  Laurentius  was  brought 
to  the  stake,  to  suffer  martyrdom,  a  soldier  who  was 
employed  as  one  of  his  executioners,  professed  to  be 
converted,  and  requested  baptism  from  the  hands  of 
the  martyr.  For  this  purpose  a  pitcher  of  water 
was  brought,  and  the  soldier  baptized  at  the  place  of 
execution.''  See  Dr.  Wall,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Mil- 
ler. Here  we  have  one  of  the  'noble  army  of  mar- 
tyrs' using  water  from  a  pitche?'  for  the  purpose  of 
administering  the  ordinance;  and  that  too,  under 
circumstances  so  solemn,  that  none  would  dare  to 
trifle  with  this  ordinance  of  God.  So  much  for  Mr. 
B's  Indian,  pitcher,  &;c. 

Mr.  B.  attempts,  page  57,  by  a  quibble,  to  evade 
what  I  had  said  about  his  translation  of  Luther's 
'Johannes  der  Taufer;'  why  did  he  not  deny  that  my 
interpretation  was  correct!  instead  of  saying  he 
could  convince  my  friend,  from  Luther's  bible,  that 
Luther  meant  John  the  Dipper?  I  have  been  assur- 
ed by  several  German  scholars,  and  have  found  by- 
consulting  a  large  German  and  English  Dictionary, 
that  my  former  interpretation  was  perfectly  cor- 
rect. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  58,  that  the  creed  makers,  at 


278 

Westminster  came  within  one  vote  of  deciding  infa" 
vor  of  immersion^  and  that  but  for  the  casting  vote 
of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  we  should  have  had  the  Presby- 
terians contending  for  'immersion.'  And  then  alludes 
to  Mr.  Campbell's  having  criticised  his  sermon  from 
the  pulpit  for  two  days.  1  do  not  know  that  it  is  my 
province  to  be  the  defender  of  the  venerable  men 
who  composed  the  Westminster  Assembly;  I  will, 
however,  say,  that  Mr.  B.  has  misrepresented  them 
in  the  statement  above  given.  Neal,  in  his  History 
of  the  Puritans,  says,  that  "the  Directory,  (contain- 
ing the  baptismal  service,)  passed  the  Assembly  with 
great  unanimity,''''  Mr.  B.  has  not  given  the  au- 
thority upon  which  he  has  made  his  statement.  And 
for  a  full  refutation  of  it,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Miller 
on  Baptism,  pages  147,  148. 

I  have  now,  candid  reader,  reached  that  point  in 
Mr.  B's  letters,  page  59,  where  he  attempts  to  vin- 
dicate himself  upon  the  charge  of  having  mutilated 
the  writings  of  Pedobaptist  authors.  He  begins 
with  Dr.  Clarke;  after  reading  his  vindication  of 
himself,  and  his  attempt  to  show  that  I  had  been 
guilty  of  the  same  thing  which  I  charged  upon  him, 
1  thought,  at  first,  perhaps  I  had  committed  some 
oversight  in  the  case.     1  accordingly  reviewed  the 


279 

matter  as  it  stood  in  the  'Appeal,'  and  compared  it 
with  the  Doctor's  note  on  Rom.  vi,  4,  and  find  that 
I  have  been  guilty  of  not  quoting  all  the  Doctor 
has  said  in  his  Commentary  on  baptism.  I  have 
cut  no  sentence  in  two;  and  as  for  shortening  the 
paragraph,  by  leaving  off  two  complete  sentences  at 
the  end  of  it,  that  did  not  in  any  measure  effect  the 
argument,  or  the  sense  of  the  note.  What  I  com- 
plained of  in  Mr.  B.  was  that  he  had  given  Dr. 
Clarke  as  a  witness  to  prove  immersion  as  the  ex- 
clusive mode,  and  that  baptizo  means  to  imm,erse,  and 
nothing  else;  and  that,  in  attempting  to  make  this 
to  appear,  he  had  cut  one  of  the  Doctor's  sen- 
tences in  two,  by  which  a  different  sense  was  given 
to  the  note  than  the  reader  would  have  received  in 
reading  the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  note  that  re- 
ferred to  the  subject  of  baptism.  Mr.  B.  seems  de- 
termined now,  to  make  amends  for  having- given  but 
part  of  a  sentence  in  his  Strictures.  He  says,  'I  will 
here  give  the  whole  sentence^  &;c.;  he  then  proceeds, 
and  quotes,  not  a  whole  sentence  only,  but  jive  sen- 
tences. I  suppose  he  thought  he  had  as  well  give 
the  reader  the  whole,  as  /  had  already  given  all 
that  was  material  to  the  question.     He  says,  on  the 

the  subject  of  dividing  the  sentence,  and  giving  part 
25 


280 

of  it  as  though  it  were  the  whole,  "As  to  using  a 
period,  I  could  not  close  the  sentence  without  it; 
and  I  hope  you  will  not  require  a  man  to  quote  all 
that  another  writer  says,  in  order  to  avoid  muti- 
lating.''^  I  do  not  expect  a  man  who  quotes  a  wri- 
ter to  give  all  he  says,  but  1  do  expect  that  he  shall 
give  enough  truly  to  represent  the  views  of  the  au- 
thor. But  this  gentleman  could  not  close  the  sen- 
tence without  a  period.  What  he  quoted  was  not  a 
sentence,  and,  therefore,  ought  not  to  have  been 
closed.  Surely  as  this  gentleman  is  a  teacher,  he 
knows  that  a  quotation  can  be  finished  as  well  with 
a  colon,  semicolon,  or  comma,  as  with  a  period.  I 
ask  now  again,  does  Dr.  Qlarke's  note  prove  that 
to  immerse  is  the  only  sense  of  baptizo'^  for  this  is  the 
point  that  he  was  brought  by  Mr.  B.  to  prove,  Strictures, 
page  15.  His  words  are,  "J?ui  this  (baptizo)  is  an  ob- 
stinate word  It  has  but  one  meaning — these  learned 
men  knew  it — and  their  candor  forced  them  to  acknowledge 
it.^''  I  boldly  affirm,  that  they  never  did  acknow- 
ledge it.  Dr.  C's  language  with  regard  to  this  word, 
is  Matt,  iii,  6, — "Were  the  people  dipped  or 
sprinkled?  for  it  is  certain  hapto  and  baptizo 
mean  both." 

Mr.  B.  may  write  as  many  explanations  and  vin- 


281 

dlcations  as  he  pleases,  but  while  his  Strictures  ex- 
ist, they  will  fully  sustain  all  that  I  have  said  of  him, 
on  this  case,  in  my  'Appeal,'  to  which  I  beg  leave 
to  refer  the  reader. 

As  it  regards  what  the  gentleman  says  about 
^confessing  my  fully,  and  asking  forgiveness  f  and  about  his 
*being  one  of  the  first  to  forgive  me,  in  the  event  of 
my  asking  forgiveness,'  &;c.,  I  would  only  observe, 
it  is  a  feature  of  'my  creed,'  that  confession  is  a 
part  of  repentance,  and  that  conviction  always  pre- 
cedes it.  Hence,  for  the  want  of  conviction^  that  I 
have  done  any  wrong  in  the  premises,  I  cannot  re- 
pent or  ask  pardon.  The  conviction  I  have  at  present 
is,  that  Mr.  B.  deserved  all  he  got  in  my  first  argu- 
ment, and  that  he  is  now  desirous  of  getting  out  of 
the  dilemma  in  the  best  way  he  can,  under  cover  of 
the  dust  raised  by  him  in  his  letters.  I  invite  any 
candid  man  to  take  his  Strictures  and  compare  them 
with  what  1  have  said,  for  proof  of  the  above.  See 
Strictures,  pages  13, 14, 15, — Appeal,  from  page  122 
to  130. 

He  next  attempts  to  clear  himself  from  the  charge 
with  regard  to  Mr.  Wesley,  page  61,  and  begins  by 
confessing  that  he  "had  in  mistake,  put  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge's words  into  Mr.    Wesley's   mouth    in   the 


282 

Strictures;  but  that  in  his  Sermon  he  had  given  the 
quotation  exact.''  I  ask,  does  that  prove  the  point 
he  had  undertaken  to  make  out?  He  had  asserted 
that  Mr.  Wesley  ^preferred  immersion,^ — that  'Ae 
had  acknowledged  that  baptizo  had  but  one  mean- 
ing.' Whereas,  Mr.  W.  says,  'the  greatest  scholars, 
and  most  proper  judges  in  the  matter,  testify  that 
the  original  term  {baptizo)  means  not  dipping,  but 
washing  or  cleansing.'  I  ask  the  candid  reader,  is 
this  an  acknowledgment?  What  I  complained  of 
was,  that  he  should  take  part  of  a  sentence  from 
Mr.  W's  notes,  and  the  circumstances  of  Parker's 
child,  and  Mary  Welch,  from  his  journal,  to  make 
out,  that  Mr.  W.  favored  his  views.  And  with 
Mr.  W's  works  in  his  hands,  containing  positive  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary^  he  should  still  abuse  the 
minds  of  his  readers,  with  this  partial  testimony, 
concerning  that  good  man's  actual  sentiments. 

Mr.  B.  did  not  quote  Mr.  Wesley  on  Coloss.  ii,  12, 
he  says,  either  in  his  printed  Sermon,  or  whilst  de- 
livering it,  'because  he  could  see  no  meaning  in  it.' 
And  he  thought  he  had  satisfied  'my  friend'  of  it  in 
the  conversation  they  had  after  the  sermon  was 
preached.     This  gentleman  thinl^s  my  'friend'  like 


283 

Goldsmith's  schoolmaster,  *though  convinced,  he  can 
argue  still.'  Now,  I  undertake  to  say,  that  Mr.  B. 
never  did  either  convince  or  ^vanquish''  him.  I  sup- 
pose he  did  not  like  to  quote  Goldsmith  correctly, 
and  say,  'though  vanquished  he  can  argue  still,'  lest 
those  who  know  the  circumstances  of  that  con- 
versation, should  think  his  boasting  unauthorized 
by  the  true  state  of  the  case. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  63,  that '/  seem  to  have  found  it  ne- 
cessai-y  to  apologize  for  Mr.  Wesley.''  I  remark,  when  Mr. 
W.  is  not  misrepresented  he  needs  no  apologist.  And 
I  blush  for  Mr.  B.  that  he  shoidd  make  it  necessary  for  me 
to  become  the  vindicator,  not  the  ^apologist,''  of  a 
man  whose  name  is  interwoven  with  that  revival  of 
the  work  of  God  which  commenced  in  the  last  cen- 
tury; and  whose  fame  shall  be  more  imperishable 
than  the  foundations  of  empires.  I  'apologise  for 
Mr.  John  We.sley?!!  'His  works  bear  witness 
of  him.'  I  only  attempted  to  remove  the  dust  that 
had  been  thrown  upon  his  'fair  escutcheon.' 

While  I  am  upon  the  subject  of  Mr.  W's  testi- 
mony, I  would  just  observe  to  the  reader,  that  Mr. 
B.  seems  to  have  suspected  his  readers  would  '■be 
surprised  at  his  frequent  references  to  Mr.  W.,^  and  sets 
about  assigning  the  reason,  viz:  Hhatthe  large  proportion 
25* 


284 

of  the  congregation^  assembled  to  hear  the  sermon^  were 
Methodists.'*  Ser.  p.  10.  Now,  admitting  this  state- 
ment to  be  true,  what  was  to  be  gained  by  attempt- 
ing to  prove  to  Methodists,  that  Mr.  Wesley  held 
one  thing  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  practised 
another?  Was  this  the  quintessence  of  politeness, 
to  tell  a  congregation,  Hhe  large  proportion  of  whom 
were  Methodists,''  that  the  founder  of  their  sect  was 
an  inconsistent  man,  and  that  he  held  ^baptismal  re- 
generation,"* and  entertained  indeed,  'worse  vietvs  on 
baptism  than  Mr.  Alexander  Campbelll'  And  this, 
too,  from  a  gentleman  who  writes  about  ^common  po- 
liteness?//^ This  I  have  written  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  statement  is  true.  I  now  pronounce  it 
to  be  utterly  ivithout  foundation,  unless  this  gentle- 
man has  some  mode  of  calculation,  that  I  have  never 
heard  of,  by  which  he  can  make  it  appear,  that  fif- 
teen or  twenty  Methodists,  are  Hhe  large  proportion 
of  a  congregation"*  of  several  hundred  persons.  Per- 
haps Mr.  B.  was  misinformed  about  his  auditors.  F 
am  willing  to  hope  he  was.  At  the  same  time,  I 
am  afraid  he  is  very  liable  to  be  imposed  upon  by 
those  who  may  imagine  they  please  him,  or  advan- 
tage their  cause,  by  repeating  silly  tales,  or  things  not 
founded  in  fact.     Of  this   character   is   the   silly 


285 

story  of  Mr.  Toplady,  page  80,  about,  *3fr.  WeS' 
ley^s  having  immersed  a  woman  in  a  hogshead.^  He 
knows,  candid  reader,  that  Mr.  Toplady  was  one  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  bitterest  opponents,  and  that  he  was 
quite  as  much  exasperated  at  Mr.  W,  as  Mr.  B. 
has  been  at  me.  Even  religious  men,  under  such 
circumstances,  can  sometimes  consent  to  gratify  one 
of  the  worst  feelings  of  human  nature,  by  retailing 
marvellous  stories  about  an  opponent,  if  they  can 
only  get  some  one  else  to  endorse  them,  whether 
they  themselves  believe  them  or  not.  3Ir,  Topla- 
dy thought  that  sin  coidd  not  hurt  the  elect.  Query, 
Is  Mr.  B.  less  partial  now  to  this  gentleman's  views 
than  formerly? 

His  next  attempt  is  to  show,  that  he  has  not  mis- 
represented Professor  Stuart's  views,  and  gravely 
says  to  me,  ^ If  you  examine  his  essay,"*  &c.  Does 
he  suppose  1  have  not  examined  it?  He  knows  / 
have  examined  it,  quite  sufficiently  to  show  the 
reader  that  Professor  Stuart,  so  far  from  confirming 
Mr.  Carson's  view  of  baptizo,  says  expressly,  page 
100,  that  'Mr.  Carson  lays  down  some  very  adven- 
turous positions  in  respect  to  words  having  one  mean- 
ing  only;  which  as  it  seems  to  me,  every  lexicon  on  earth 
contradicts,  and  always  must  contradict.''    And  yet  Mr. 


286 

B.  persists  in  making  the  Professor  a  witness  for 
immersion  as  the  only  sense  of  baptizo.  And  says, 
page  59,  that  he  (Stuart)  'acknowledges,  or  rather 
affirms,  that  all  lexicographers  and  critics,  of  any 
note,  have  assigned  to  it  (baptizo)  the  same  mean- 
ing that  Carson  does,' — while  Carson,  the  reader 
will  observe,  confesses  that  ^^all  lexicographers 
and  commentators  are  against  him  in  that  opinion.^'' 
Carson  on  Baptism,  page  79,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Mil- 
ler. 

Here,  according  to  Mr.  B.,  Professor  Sfuart  con- 
tradicts Mr.  Carson:  Stuart  says,  all  lexicogra- 
phers, of  any  note,  agree  with  Carson  in  opinion; 
Carson  says,  all  lexicographers  are  against  him  in 
opinion.  Verily,  here  is  a  discrepancy!  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  the  intelligent  reader  to  my  former 
argument  for  Professor  Stuart's  views;  and  for  a  ful- 
ler account  of  them,  to  his  Essay  on  the  Mode  of 
Baptism. 

In  every  case  which  I  have  examined,  of  the 
Pedobaptist  authorities  quoted  by  Mr.  B.,  I  have 
found  the  remark  of  Peter  Edwards  to  hold  good; 
i.  e.  'that  those  writers  are  made  to  concede  what 
they  never  meant  to  concede.'' 

On  page  69,  Mr.  B.  quotes  Dr.  Doddridge,  1  think 


.  287 

unfairly,  in  the  words  following:  "It  seems  the 
part  of  candor  to  confess,  that  here  (Rom.  vi,  4,) 
is  an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion." This,  the  reader  will  observe,  he  makes  a 
full  sentence,  putting  a  period  in  the  place  where 
the  Doctor  has  a  comma.  But  the  gentleman  says, 
'he  cannot  close  a  sentence  without  a  period.''  One  would 
think,  he  might  know  how  to  close  part  of  a  sen- 
tence without  one. 

The  Doctor's  words  are,  "it  seems  the  part  of  can- 
dor to  confess,  that  here  is  an  allusion  to  the  man- 
ner of  baptizing  by  immersion,  as  most  usual  in 
these  early  times;  but  that  will  not  prove  this  particular 
circumstance  to  be  essential  to  the  ordinance."— 
The  reader  can  compare  these  quotations,  and  see 
whether  they  give  the  same  idea  of  the  Doctor's 
views. 

When  1  deem  it  expedient,  and  have  nothing  more 
important  to  engage  my  attention,  I  may.  perhaps  be 
at  the  pains  to  examine  some  others  of  Mr.  B's 
abused  critics.  I  have  no  doubt  they  have  all  been 
treated  pretty  much  alike. 

On  page  65,  66,  Mr.  B.  introduces  again  the  sub- 
ject of 'baptismal  regeneration,'  and  has  made  a  piti- 
ful  attempt  to  show  his  readers  that  Mr,   Wesley 


288 

built  infant  baptism  upon  that  doctrine.  Hear  him, 
"^ny  man  of  candor  and  common  sense  must  see  that 
Mr.  Wesley  held  itj  and  built  infant  baptism  upon  it.^^ 
And  be  adds,  ^'•and  besides  this  foundation,  none  other 
can  be  laid  upon  which  the  baptism  of  infants  can  standi 
Does  not  the  reader  see  in  this  an  attempt  to  narrow 
down  the  evidence  for  infant  baptism  to  this  single  point? 
He  says,  /  have  charged  Mr.  Wesley,  both  from  the  pulpit 
and  the  press,  with  advocating  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation. Mark  that!  Is  not  this  a  mere  blind? 
Have  ten  intelligent  men  ever  dreamed  of  it,  in  read- 
ing Mr.  W's  treatise  of  baptism?  To  take  isolated 
passages  from  the  writings  of  a  man,  wresting  them 
from  their  proper  connection,  is  not  a  fair  way  of 
coming  at  his  true  sentiments,  on  any  given  point. 
And  indeed,  after  Mr.  B.  has  adduced  his  testimony, 
what  does  it  prove?  That  we  are  regenerated  by 
baptism?  Not  at  all.  By  what  then?  By  grace. 
Here  are  the  words,  ''By  baptism  we,  who  were,  by 
nature,  children  of  wrath,  are  made  the  children  of 
God.  And  this  regeneration,  which  our  church,  in  so 
many  places  ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  bare- 
ly being  admitted  into  the  church,  though  commonly 
connected  therewith,  being  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ's  church,  weareinade  the  children  of  God  by  adop- 


289 
Hon  and  graced  He  then  adds,  This  is  grounded 
on  the  plain  words  of  our  Lord,  'Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,'*  &c.,  and  quotes 
the  words  of  the  apostle,  where  he  calls  baptism 
^the  washing  of  regeneration,^  He  then  adds,  'nor 
does  she  (the  church)  ascribe  it  to  the  outward  tvash- 
ing,  but  to  the  imcard  grace,''  &c.  Query,  Has 
Mr.  Broaddus  any  method  by  which  people  can  be 
regenerated,  and  made  children  of  God,  other  than 
*by  inward  grace,"*  Mr.  W.,  in  his  sermon  on  the 
'New  Birth,'  after  quoting  the  questions  and  answers 
in  the  Church  Catechism,  says,  'nothing  therefore  is 
plainer,  than  that,  according  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, BAPTISM  IS  NOT  THE  NEW  BIRTH.'  I  refer  the 
reader  to  his  'Sermons,'  and  'Treatise  on  Baptism,' 
for  further  evidence,  that  Mr.  B.  in  charging  Mr.  Wesley, 
from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  with  holding  baptismal 
regeneration,  has  charged  him  foolishly.  I  would  advise 
him,  in  future,  to  pay  more  regard  to  the  9th  com- 
mandment, Ex.  XX,  16,  especially  when  men  have 
gone  up  to  heaven,  and  cannot  answer  for  them- 
selves. 

I  might  accuse  the  apostle  Peter,  in  the  very 
same  way,  with  holding  that  ice  are  ^saved  by  bap- 
tism;'' for  he  says,  'The  like  figure  whereunto,  even 


290 

baptism  doth  also  now  save  us.^  But  the  apostle  ex- 
plains himself,  and  so  does  Mr.  Wesley.  If  the 
candid  reader  will  examine  Mr.  W's  Treatise  on 
Baptism,  he  will  see  that  he  rests  infant  baptism,  not 
on  baptismal  regeneration,  (as  Mr.  B.  says  he  does,) 
but  upon  sound  reason,  and  scripture  evidence.  If  I 
could  find  a  dead  giant,  how  I  could  brandish  my 
sword  over  him  without  fear!!!  "I  have  charged  Mr. 
Wesley  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press."  Who  is  this 
*GiANT  WARRIOR?'  that  ^aims  his  blows'  at  the  high  and 
the  low,  and  striding  along,  recklessly  treads  alike  upon 
the  feelings  of  the  living,  and  the  ashes  of  the  ^mighty 
deadW 

But  Mr.  B.  says,  the  public  want  light  on  the 
subject  of  Methodist  views  of  baptism.  Does  he 
mean  the  community  at  large?  or  does  he  mean  the 
Baptist  public?  Some  of  them  at  least,  had  better 
use  the  light  they  already  have,  before  they  *call 
for  more'  with  regard  to  our  views.  Some  of  them 
have  refused  to  read  the  'Appeal'  when  it  was  ofier- 
ed  them  gratuitously.  It  would  surely  be  of  no 
avail  to  such,  however  plainly  and  fully  I  might 
answer  on  this  subject. 

I  am  not  aware  that,  our  people,  or  the  'ruling 
powers'  (as  this  gentleman  calls  the  ministry,)  hold 


S91 

the  doctrine  of  'baptismal  regeneration'  either  in  the 
case  of  infants  or  adults.  The  views  of  the  Meth- 
odists, as  a  denomination,  have  been  long  before  the 
world;  for  we  have  a  published  creed.  If  Mr.  B's 
"public"  want  light,  with  regard  to  our  views,  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  them  to  our  Articles  of  Religion  in 
our  Discipline,  and  to  the  '  Wesleyan  Methodist  Cate- 
chism,' Nos.  1,  2,  3,  published  at  the  Book-room, 
New  York. 

He  makes  an  attempt,  p.  71,  to  explain  away  the 
view  I  gave  of  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
Red  sea,  and  will  have  it,  that  if  water  from  the 
cloud,  and  the  sea  come  on  them,  they  were  bap» 
tized  twice.  This  was  a  baptism  of  men,  women^ 
and  children,  and  for  a  full  answer  to  Mr.  B.  rela* 
tive  to  the  mode  of  its  administration,  I  refer  the 
candid  reader  to  my  former  argument  on  this  point* 
He  is  so  much  pleased  with  his  fancy,,  thsit  Mr. 
Wesley  and  1  disagree  in  our  views  of  the  condi» 
tion  of  infants,  that,  on  p.  72,  he  brings  it  forward 
again.  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  add  any  thing  to 
what  I  have^aid  on  that  subject,  in  the  former  part 
of  this  argument. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  B's  remarks  on  the  Greek  prepo- 
sitions, p.  73,  I  have  but  a  single  observation  or  two 
26 


to  make.  My  criticism  on  the  preposition  has  been 
pronounced  ^perfectly  correct^''  by  a  gentleman  criti- 
cally acquainted  with  the  Greek  language,  and  who 
is  less  interested  in  this  controversy  than  either  Mr. 
B.  or  myself,  and  therefore,  more  entitled  to  credit. 
For  we  have  seen,  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Carson,  how 
the  support  of  'a  theory'  can  induce  a  man  to  con- 
tradict "all  lexicographers  and  commentators."  The 
Baptists  hold  that  we  are,  to  he  baptized  in  imitation  of 
Christ;  of  course,  then,  if  we  find  any  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding the  meaning  of  the  prepositions,  in  any 
case  of  baptism,  subsequent  to  his,  it  will  be  fair  to 
refer  to  the  pattern  given  in  the  case  of  his  baptism, 
for  a  solution  of  the  difficulty.  Well  then,  where 
the  baptism  of  Christ  is  spoken  of,  the  term  Aro, 
is  used,  the  primary  meaning  of  which,  according 
to  Parkhurst's  lexicon,  is  from,  away  from. 

*And  straightway  coming  up  (Apo)  out  of  the  wa- 
ter,' Mark  i,  10.  Now,  as  Mr.  B.  will  contend  for 
the  primary  meaning  of  prepositions,  let  him  take 
the  primary  meaning  of  Apo,  and  the  evidence  for 
immersion,  drawn  from  the  baptism  of  Christ,  van- 
ishes. Instead  of  his  emerging  from  beneath  the 
water,  it  will  appear,  that  he  only  came  up  from 
the  river,  which  he  might  do,  without   having  wet 


293 

so  much  as  the  sole  of  his  foot.  If  the  apostles  fol- 
lowed the  'pattern  showed'  them  in  the  'Master's' 
case,  we  must  interpret  the  prepositions  used  m  the  cases 
recorded  in  the  ^ids  of  the  Apostles,  according  to  the  pri- 
mary meaning  of  Apo;  i.  e.  from — away  from.  Thus 
the  reader  will  perceive,  that,  the  evidence  which 
the  Baptists  attempt  to  draw  from  the  preposition, 
in  favor  of  immersion,  is  only  a  fancy  of  their's  to 
aid  in  the  support  of  'a  theory.' 

Mr.  B.  says,  p.  73,  that  he  "finds  in  controversy 
with  some  men,  he  must  sometimes  consent  to  do  a 
small  business,  or  else  have  no  business  at  all."  / 
did  not  invite  any  controversy  with  this  gentleman 
in  particular.  If  he  thought  me  a  puny  antagonist, 
prepared  only  to  wage  a  'small  war,'  unworthy  his 
giant  strength,  why  did  he  invite  me  into  the  field  of 
controversy?  Was  he  ambitious  to  engage  in  a 
^small  business?''  to  vanquish  a  mere  pigmy  oppo- 
nent? The  candid  reader  knows,  that  men  of  true 
courage  never  seek  to  impose  on  the  weak,  and  to 
run  down  those,  who  are  only  capable  of  doing  a 
'small  business.'  Moreover,  what  /  said  of  the  pre- 
positions, was  only  in  answer  to  his  use  of  them. 
So  that,  if  this  business  is  small,  ht  has  the  credit 
of  having  commenced  it. 


294 

He  asks  on  the  same  page,  "Mr  S.  who  told  you 
that  Saul  of  Tarsus  and  the  family  of  Cornelius  were 
baptized  in  a  house?"  1  answer,  the  words  of  St. 
Luke  set  forth,  that,  they  tcere  in  the  house  when  the 
preaching  took  place,  and  do  not  say  that  they  went 
out  of  the  house  to  receive  baptism.  If  Mr.  B.  will 
say  that  they  did  go  out^  for  the  purpose  of  receiving 
baptism,  then  it  is  not  with  me,  but  with  himself  to  fur- 
nish the  proof  of  it.  In  Acts  ix,  17,  18,  19,  vs. 
we  have  the  case  of  Saul,  "and  Ananias  entered  into 
the  house;  and  putting  his  hands  on  him,  &c. — and  he 
received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  bap- 
tized. And  when  he  had  received  meat,  he  was 
strengthened.''  Now  I  say,  he  received  baptism  in  the 
house.  And  if  this  gentleman  has  any  evidence,  that 
he  received  it  out  of  doors,  it  would  be  more  becom- 
ing in  him  to  present  his  evidence,  instead  of  asking 
such  questions.  One  would  think  that  the  Baptists,  of 
all  others,  ought  to  be  found  in  possession  of  a  creed,  or 
catechism,,  for  they  seem,  of  all  people,  most  prone  to 
get  information  by  asking  questions.  They  remind 
me  in  this  respect,  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  of 
our  Lord's  time,  who  did  little  else  in  their  conver- 
sations with  Christ,  and  his  disciples,  than  ask  ques- 
tions.    The  intelligent  reader  will  observe  in  read* 


295 

ing  the  gospels  they  rarely  advanced  any  thing  them- 
selves, or  affirmed  any  thing;  but  pat  themselves  in  their 
trenches;  and  said,  ^'■why  do  thy  disciples  so  and  so?  Doth 
your  master  pay  trihutcV^  ^^Tell  us  is  it  laivfid  to  pay  trib- 
ute to  CcBsarT^  "Master  ivhose  wife  shall  she  be  in  the 
resurrection;  for  the  seventh  had  her?"  ^c.  Our  Lord 
said  to  such  ^ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  scriptures.'^  It  is 
only  those  who  hold  systems  of  error  that  have  need  to 
support  them  by  perpetually  asking  silly  questions 
of  an  opponent,  as  though  they  had  a  right  to  become 
catechists  for  all  the  world. 

On  page  7i,  Mr.  B.  again,  the  third  time,  intro- 
duces the  case  of  Mr.  G.  of  Culpepper,  who  he 
says  baptized  by  immersion  75  persons,  in  25  minutes,  as 
can  easily  be  proved:  this  was  three  to  a  minute;  and 
I  am  sure  I  have  never  seen  three  sprinkled  in  one 
minute,  in  my  life;  neither  have  1  ever  heard  of  it." 
After  Mr.  B.  had  given  the  public  this  Culpepper 
case  in  his  Strictures  and  Sermon,  I  did  hope,  for 
the  credit  of  religion  he  would  say  no  more  about  it. 
Here  is  the  absurd  spectacle  presented  of  a  minister  of  God 
administering  one  of  the  solemn  sacraments  of  the  Gospel, 
against  time,  and  "several  gentlemen  of  undoubted  ve- 
racity, holding  their  watches  in  their  hands,  and  de- 
claring this  to  be  the  result."     This  seems  to  be  a 

favorite  case  with  our  Baptist  friends,  Elder  G.  as 
26* 


296 

well  as  Mr.  B.  has  taken  occasion  to  make  use  of  it. 
It  seems  truly,  to  have  been  an  experiment  made  in  the 
county  of  Culpepper  for  the  benefit  of  the  Baptist 
cause  throughout  the  world,  in  order  to  show  that 
Peter  and  his  companions,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
could  have  dipped  the  three  thousand  in  the  short 
time  allowed  for  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nance. Before  this  case  can  be  made  to  prove  any 
thing  in  favor  of  their  cause,  it  must  be  shown,  that 
the  apostles  of  our  Lord  would  hurry,  as^Mr.  G.  did, 
in  giving  the  ordinance.  But  why  need  those  elders 
go  all  the  way  to  Culpepper,  to  look  up  this  case  of 
baptism,  in  order  to  tell  the  world,  how  long  it  re- 
quires to  give  the  ordinance  by  immersion?  Have 
they  never  administered  it  to  a  sufficient  number  at 
once,  to  enable  them,  to  form  an  opinion  about  the 
length  of  time  required?  I  suppose  they  have  never 
made  an  experiment.  Mr.  B.  ^never  heard  of  three  be- 
ing sprinkled  in  one  minuteT  and  we  hope  he  never  will; 
for  Pedobaptist  ministers  do  not  perform  the  ordinances  of 
God  against  time.  So  much  for  his  Culpepper  case. 
He  thinks,  the  fact, -that  Pedobaptists  attempt  to  prove 
that  John's  was  not  Christian  baptism,  is  sufficient 
evidence  that  they  considered  John  gave  the  ordinance 
<by  immersion;'  I  have  only  to  say,  this  'argument 
proves  nothing,  because  all  the  views  which  we  take 


297 

of  the  nature  of  John's  baptism  are  sustained  by 
Robt.  Hall  in  his  argument  for  open  communion,  and 
I  suppose  HE  will  not  be  suspected  of  being  influen- 
ced by  Pedobaptist  motives,  in  this  case. 

On  page  75,  after  giving  a  caricature  of  the  prac- 
tice of  Pedobaptists  in  administering  the  ordinance, 
he  proceeds  to  notice  the  argument  for  pouring  in 
baptism,  drawn  from  the  necessity  of  a  resemblance 
between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified.  He  attempts 
to  make  out,  that  the  effects  of  the  Spirit,  and  not 
the  manner  of  its  communication  are  to  be  represent- 
ed by  baptism.  This  is  a  new  discovery  of  the  gen- 
tleman's, by  which  he  hopes  to  evade  the  argument. 
He  was  quite  contented  to  suppose  before,  that  the 
Spirit  was  poured  out,  until  the  place  wdsJilUdy  and  they 
were  thereby  immersed.  But  after  my  exploding 
that  fancy  in  my  former  argument,  he  has  of  course 
to  look  out  for  some  other  imagination  or  invention  to 
help  the  cause.  Now  he  says,  *my  dear' sir,  J  hope 
you  will  give  up  this  fancy;  and  be  contented  to 
have  the  effects  oHhe  Spirit's  influences  represented  by 
baptism;'  and  asks  'if  the  effectsa.Te  so  partial, as  to  be 
better  represented  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  than  by 
immersion?'  I  answer  the  effects  of  the  extraordinary  in- 
Jluence  of  the  spirit,  are  more  truly  represented  by  sprink- 
ling, than  by  immersion,  and  the  proof  is  easy.     Al- 


298 

though  we  hear  some  talk  of  the  fulness^  the  pleni' 
tude  of  spiritual  gifts;  yet  what  says  the  apostle  Paul, 
to  the  Corinthian  Church?  although  they  had  all 
been  baptized  with  the  Spirit,  each  individual  in- 
stead of  having  a.  fulness  of  spiritual  gifts,  possessed 
only  one;  "For  to  one  is  given,  by  the  Spirit  the 
word  of  wisdomj  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge; 
to  another  faith;  to  another  the  gifts  of  healing;  to 
another  the  working  of  miracles;  to  another  prophecy; 
to  another  discerning  of  spirits;  to  another  divers 
kinds  of  tongues;  to  another  the  interpretation  of 
tongues;  but  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self- 
same spirit,  DIVIDING  to  every  man  severally  as  he 
will."  See  1  Cor.  xii,  8 — 11.  Now  a  small  por- 
tion of  water  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  represent 
a  single  spiritual  gift. 

He  says,  page  76,  "the  baptism  of  the  spirit  was 
only  a.  figurative  baptism.  I  hope  you  will  not  sup- 
pose that  the  spirit  was  literally  poured  out  from 
heaven!  That  influence  by  which  the  disciples  were 
enabled  to  speak  with  tongues,  was  altogether  an  in- 
fluence of  mind  upon  mind.  How  then,  can  any  ma- 
terial element,  ever  represent  the  manner  of  it."  I 
do  suppose  that  the  spirit  was  poured  out;  and  that  for  the 
best  possible  reason,  (viz.  j  the  word  of  God  says  it  was. 
*And  I  hope  never  to  '■figure'  away  the  plain  com- 


299 

mon  sense  meaning  of  the  book  of  God.  If  I  could  not 
support  my  cause  without  that,  I  would  abandon  it 
forever.  We  do  not  pretend  to  explain  the  manner 
in  which  mind,  (as  he  has  it,)  acts  upon  mind.  We 
only  impHcitl)^  believe  what  the  Holy  Ghost  declares, 
(i.  e.)  "on  the  Gentiles  also,  (as  well  as  the  Jews,)  was 
POURED  OUT  the  gift  of  THE  HOLY  GHOST."  And  as 
it  is  said  "It  fell  on  all  them,  which  heard  the 
word,"  we  suppose  that,  Ht  ivas poured  out  from  heuvcnW 

I  trust  never  to  be  so  'given  over  to  strong  delu- 
sion' as  to  contradict  the  plain  dictates  of  'common 
sense'  as  well  as  the  word  of  divine  Revelation,  in 
order  to  support  a  favorite  theory.  Mr.  B.  in  pro- 
pagating this  new  fancy,  has  adopted  a  mode  of  ex- 
pression altogether ybreio-w  from  theological  usage; 
he  calls  the  spirit  of  God,  "mind;"  "an  influence  of 
miiid  upon  mind.^^ 

This  same  matter  of  the  pouring  out  of  the  holy 
Ghost,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  is  exceedinoly  per- 
plexing to  this  gentleman.  On  page  77,  he  advances 
an  entirely  new  view  of  the  matter.  He  has  discov- 
ered now  that  there  were  none  of  the  disciples  pres- 
ent, when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out,  except  the 
twelve  apostles.  He  says,  "yow  spake  as  if  the  120 
where  in  the  room  when  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  occuired. 


300 

/  deny  it»  Read  the  last  verse  of  the  first  chapter, 
and  the  first  verse  of  the  second>  and  you  will  see 
that  none  but  the  tivelve  are  mentioned  as  being  to- 
gether." Now  candid  reader,  I  have  read  the  pas- 
sage, perhaps  as  often  as  this  gentleman,  and  cannot 
see  any  such  thing,  and  how  should  /  see  it,  when 
Mr.  A.  Campbell  could  not  discover  that  there  were 
only  THE  TWELVE  present.  On  the  contrary  he  saw 
120  present.  In  his  debate,  page  376,  in  attempting 
to  give  an  express  warrant  for  female  communion, 
he  says,  "the  number  of  the  whole  was  about  120, 
chap,  ii,  1.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  they  (the  120) 
were  all  vjith  one  accord  in  one  place.''''  How 
strange,  that,  two  Baptist  elders,  should  differ  so 
much  in  opinion,  about  a  plain  matter  of  fact  ^  and  each 
refer  their  readers  to  the  same  passage  for  his  proof! 
The  reader  must  take  notice,  that  they  were  both 
but  trying  to  evade  a  different  Pedobaptist  argument. 
The  intelligent  reader  however,  will  conclude  that  the 
word  of  God  is  not  like  a  heathen  oracle,  that  will 
give  out  one  answer  at  one  time,  and  a  contrary  one 
at  another,  just  to  suit  the  whims  of  different  priests. 
The  passage  says  there  were  120,  when  Mr.  C.  wants 
an  express  warrant  for  female  communion:  But  when 
Mr.  B.  wants  to  evade  the  difficulty  I  had  presented 


301 

in  the  way  of  his  theory,  then  the  passage  says  there 
were  but  12  present//  This  gentleman,  however, 
not  only  contradicts  Mr.  Campbell  and  me,  but  he 
contradicts  himself  also,  as  the  reader  can  easily  dis- 
cover, by  looking  at  his  Ser.  page  35.  Where  he 
says,  ^Hhe  70  no  doubt  were  present''^  at  the  baptizing. 
It  is  a  great  pity  that  a  man  who  attempts  to  sup- 
port error,  should  have  a  bad  memory,  and  should 
thus  be  exposed  to  the  danger  of  unsaying  at  one 
time  what  he  has  said  at  another!!!  Perhaps  he  will 
say,  only  the  twelve  were  present  at  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Spirit,  and  that  the  seventy  came  afterwards, 
to  help  with,  or  witness  the  baptizing.  If  he  should 
take  this  course,  the  reader  can  consult  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Acts,  from  the  15th  verse  to  the  end,  and  there 
he  will  discover,  without  the  aid  of  any  commentator, 

that  ONE  HUNDRED    AND    TWENTY    DISCIPLES    WERE 

present  on  the  occasion.  The  candid  reader  can 
judge,  how  much  credit  a  system  is  entitled  to,  that 
requires  such  twisting  and  turning,  and  prevarica- 
tion on  the  part  of  its  advocates,  in  order  to  support 
it. 

Mr.  B.  says,  that  "the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  by 
which  men  are  brought  to  repent  and  turn  to  God, 
are  no  where  in  the  bible  called  baptism.     I  can 


302 

never  believe  a  man  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  the  scripture  sense  of  that  expression,  unless  he 
confirms  his  pretensions  by  speaking  in  all  manner 
of  tongues."  Then  it  will  follow,  that  when  John 
the  Baptist  said,  "I  baptize  you  with  water,  he  shall 
baptize  you  with  fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost,''^  he  wish- 
ed the  multitude  to  understand  they  should  receive 
the  extraordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit,  and  have 
power  to  ^speak  all  manner  of  tongues;^  for  Mr.  B. 
will  not  admit  that  they  received  this  baptism,  unless 
this  sign  followed.  Did  ever  any  man,  in  his  sober 
senses,  suppose,  that  John  meant  the  miraculous  poW' 
ers  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  'I  speak  as  unto  wise 
men.' 

On  page  77,  he  says,  "T%.e  scriptures  no  where  speak 
of  baptism  as  a  representation  of  the  Spirifs  influences. 
It  is  a  representation  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus.^^  And  referring  to  Rom.  vi,  4;  and  Col.  ii, 
12,  he  says,  'St.  Paul  understood  it  so.'  Then  John 
the  Baptist  should  have  said  to  the  multitude. 
He  shall  be  buried  and  arise  from  the  dead,  therefore, 
I  am  come  baptizing  with  water.  Let  the  reader 
consult  John  i,  28  to  34,  and  he  will  discover  that 
the  Baptist  gives  a  diiTerent  view  of  this  matter,  from 
that  given  above  by  Mr.  B.  He  declares,  that,  he 
came  baptizing  with  water,  because  the  Son  of  Go3 


303 

would  give  a  baptism  of  fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Christ  himself  gives  the  same  view,  Acts  i,  5,  "  Jo^/» 
baptized  loith  water;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."     In  Acts  xi,  15,  16,  Peter  gives  the  same 
view,  'And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost 
FELL  ON  THEM,  as  ott  US  at  the  beginning.     Then 
remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  John  indeed 
baptized  ivith  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.'^^     The  reader  can   now  judge  who  is  most 
to  be  credited  in  this  case,  Mr.  B.  or  the  authorities 
I    have  quoted.     Added  to  all  this,  if  baptism  re- 
prssented  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  how  did 
it  happen  that  the  disciples,  after  witnessing  amd  per' 
forming  thousands  of  baptisms,  were  profoundly  ig- 
norant of  the  thing  represented?     For,  up  to  the  eve 
of  Christ's  crucifixion,  yea,  even  after  he  had   been 
crucified,  they  did  not  understand  that  he  was  to  arise 
from  the   dead.     See  Mark  ix,  10;  and  John  xx,  9, 
'■They  questioned  one  with  another  what  the  rising  from 
the   dead  should  mean.     For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the 
scripture,  that  he  must  rise  again  from  the  dead.'*     But 
Mr.  B.  will  have  it,  that,  it  was  represented  to  them, 
in  every  one  of  the  thousands  of  cases  of  baptism, 
which  they  witnessed.     Is  it  possible,  he  can  so  pre- 
sume upon  the  credulity  of  his  readers,  as  to  sup- 
pose, that,  one  in  a  thousaud  can  be  made  to  believe 
27 


304 

in  this  fancy  ^ — this  far-fetched  conceit,  that  baptism 
represented,  not  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
Hhe  burial  and  resurrection  of  JesusT  And  that,  after  the 
disciples  had  seen  it  represented,  for  more  than  three 
years,  yet  when  Christ  spoke  to  them  of  his  rising 
from  the  dead,  they  knew  nothing  at  all  about  it? 
They  had  never  heard  of  this  'figment,'  that  tells  of 
the  '■liquid  grave,"*  and  the  ^watery  tomb,'^  as  it  is 
quite  a  modern  invention. 

The  sign  must  agree  with  the  thing  signified, — the  sign 
was  water  baptism,  the  thing  signified  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit:  God  gave  the  latter  by  'pouring  out,'  'shedding 
FORTH,'  &c.,  therefore,  the  sign  was  given  by  pouring 
the  water  upon  the  subject!!  '/  baptize  you  with 
water;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

For  my  view  of  the  baptism  of  the  three  thous- 
and on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
the  reader  to  the  former  argument.  /  say  again, 
as  I  said  at  first,  there  is  a  total  absence  of  all  evi- 
dence that  they  received  the  rite  by  immersion.  Mr. 
B's  remarks  about  my  conceding  any  thing  on  that 
point,  are  perfectly  gratuitous;  for,  although  I  ad- 
mitted that  there  was  water  enough  in  Jerusalem, 
yet  I  said,  the  public  and  private  bathing  places  were 
in  the  keeping  of  Christ's  enemies;  so  that  Mr.  B's 
thanks  for  my  liberality^  are  entirely  out  of  place. 


305 

On  page  79,  he  introduces  the  case  of  the  jailor, 
and  makes  a  very  pathetic  exclamation  indeed, — 
'O  Mr.  S.  when  shall  I  be  delivered  from  the  morti- 
fication,' &;c.  He  says,  'I  could  wish,  for  the  sake 
of  the  profession  to  which  you  belong,  that  this  were 
a  solitary  case.'  I  cannot  help  this  gentleman's  mor- 
tification. If  he  will  persist  in  attempts  to  abuse 
the  minds  of  his  readers,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  to 
hold  up  his  conduct  in  its  proper  colors,  that  it  may 
meet  its  merited  reprobation.  He  says,  'I  quoted 
the  very  language  of  the  scriptures,'  &;c.  So  he 
did.  But  he  did  not  quote  enough  of  the  language 
to  give  the  true  view  of  the  case.  Nor  has  he  now 
quoted  enough.  In  the  Sermon  he  quoted  from  the 
29th  verse — in  the  Letters  from  the  25th  verse.  If 
he  had  commenced  at  the  23d  verse,  as  I  have 
shown  in  the  'Appeal,'  the  reader  would  have  been 
saved  the  danger  of  being  imposed  upon  by  his  capi- 
tals in  his  Sermon,  and  the  italics  in  his  Letters. 
He  proposes  to  let  St.  Luke's  words  inform  the  read- 
er in  the  premises,  and  says,  "This  is  Luke's  account 
of  the  matter,  without  even  the  addition  of  capital 
letters,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  require  no  little  inge- 
nuity to  find  in  all  this  any  thing  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  immersion.     Let  us  see — the  jailor  first 


306 

brought  them  out."  Now,  why  did  not  the  gentle- 
man accord  a  little  common  sense  to  his  readers,  and 
leave  them  to  judge  from  Liike^s  account,  without 
the  aid  of  his  italics,  instead  of  going  on  to  repeat 
certain  of  Luke's  words,  putting  them  in  italics? 
This  trickery,  I  would  fain  hope,  is  too  manifest,  to 
impose  on  any,  who  have  not  sold  themselves  to 
blind  devotion  to  a  party. 

I  say,  in  conclusion,  that  his  version  of  this  matter, 
makes  Paul  and  Silas  a  couple  of  arch  hypocrites; 
for  it  represents  that  they  left  the  prison  at  midnight,  and 
went  off  to  the  'river  Strymon,'  or  some  other 
stream;  and  yet,  when  the  next  morning  arrived,  and 
the  magistrates  sent  two  'Serjeants,  saying,  let  these 
men  go,'  they  refused  to  leave  the  jail,  stating  that 
Hhey  would  not  be  thrust  out  privately;'  and  added, 
^Let  the  magistrates  come  themselves  and  fetch  us  out.^ 
And  'the  magistrates  came  and  besought  them,  and 
brought  them  out,'  &;c.  And  these  are  the  men 
who  left  the  prison  at  midnight  privately,  of  their 
own  accord,  who  now  that  it  is  day,  need  to  be  en- 
treated to  leave  it,  before  they  will  consent  to  go 
out!!!  This  truly,  was  rather  a  bad  lesson  to  teach 
their  new  converts!  But,  candid  reader,  Paul  and 
Silas  were  not  the  men  to  practice  duplicity.  There- 


307 

fore,  I  say  they  never  left  the  premises  of  the  Philip- 
pian  jail,  until  the  morning,  and  the  baptizing  took 
place  within  doors  and  not  at  the  'river  Strymon.'  I 
refer  the  reader  to  my  former  argument  on  this  case 
for  a  full  answer  to  Mr.  B. 

He  begins  his  nineteenth  letter  by  saying,  "how 
determined  must  that  man  be,  'to  support  a  theory,' 
who   can  undertake,  by   mere  'sifting'  to  set  aside 
the  plain  testimony  for  immersion,  which  is  furnish- 
ed in  the  eunuch's  case,''  &c.     I  always  consider, 
that  'sifting'"^  in  contr(wersy,  is  better  than  'shift- 
ing.'    That  this  gentleman  has  dealt  largely  in  the 
latter,  I  presume  the  reader  has  discovered  during 
this  examination.     "What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat, 
saith  the  Lord,''  and  how  is  the  wheat  of  truth  to  be 
separated  from  the  chaff  of  error,  without  '■sifting 
As  it  regards  his  strong  or  plain  testimony  for  im 
mersion  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch's  baptism,  they  re 
main  to  be  shown.     My  former  argument  on  this 
case  he  has  not  met,  as  the  reader  can  see  by  com 
paring  the  'Appeal,'  pages  68,  69,  70,  with  his  Let 
ters,  pages  81,  82,  83. 

On  pag^  86,  Mr.  B.  gives  us  quite  a  short  method 
for  disposing  of  the  matter  in  controversy,  he  says, 
"Now,  sir,  I  will  tell  you  what  our  'favorite  argu- 


308 

ment'  is, — it  is  this,  the  word  of  our  King,  through- 
out, is  in  favor  of  immersion.  This  is  my  'favor- 
ite argument.'  1  find  immersion  in  the  pattern;  and 
I  find  nothing  else  there."  This  is  begging  the 
question,  with  a  witness.  Does  the  reader  see  any 
argument  in  his  ^favorite  argument^ 

Why  did  he  not  attempt  to  answer  my  remarks 
upon  the  ^supposed  immersion^  of  Christ?  Also,  my 
exposition  of  Rom.  vi,  4;  and  Col.  ii,  12?  The  view 
r  took  of  their  argument  for  immersion,  drawn  from 
antiquity,  where  the  rite  was  performed,  (accord- 
ing to  the  Baptist  historian  Robinson,)  upon  naked 
subjects,  both  male  and  female,  he  passes  over 
lightly,  as  though  he  wished  to  keep  it  from  the 
view  of  his  readers. 

Being  hard  pressed  by  the  case  which  I  gave  from 
Benedict's  history  of  the  Baptists,  where  Roger 
Williams  received  baptism  by  immersion,  from  the 
hands  of  a  layman,  who  never  had  been  dipped  himself^ 
Mr.  B.  on  page  88,  has  made  a  concession,  that, 
upon  reflection,  seems  to  have  alarmed  the  gentle- 
man himself,  judging  from  what  he  wrote  imme- 
diately after.  Here  it  is:  "I  GRANT,  SIR,  THAT, 
IF  A  MAN  HAS  NOT  BEEN  IMMERSED,  HE 
MAY  IMMERSE  OTHERS,  and  his  neglect  of 


309 

HIS  OWN  DUTY,  MAY  NOT  DISQUALIFY  HIM  FOR  AS- 
SISTING OTHERS  IN  THE  DISCHARGE  OF  THEIR's." 
Now,  LET  IT  BE  KNOWN  TO  ALL  WHOM  IT  MAY  CON- 
CERN, THAT,  Elder  Broaddus  being  judge,  all 
Pedobaptist  ministers  are  qualified  to  give 
the  ordinance  by  immersion!!! 

So  that,  if  you  prefer  the  Methodists,  Presbyte- 
rians, Episcopalians,  or  any  others,  to  the  Baptists, 
you  may  receive  valid  baptism,  by  immersion,  at 
their  hands!!  But  he  was  evidently  alarmed  at  his 
own  admission,  as  I  shall  show  the  reader.  He 
says,  on  the  same  page,  "But  1  have  always  thought 
it  singular,  that  those  who  ridicule  immersion,  &c. 
should,  after  all,  consent  to  immerse  those  who  can- 
not be  convinced  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  is  Hhe 
more  excellent  way.'     And  asks  me — "How  then 

CAN  YOU  CONSENT    TO    IMMERSE?"       "HoW    Can    yOU 

encourage  people  in  their  superstition?''^  He  then 
adds — "On  the  last  page  of  your  'Appe?il,'  you  call 
immersion  'the  child  of  superstition.'  "  This  is  not 
as  it  is  there  written.  I  called  it  no  such  thing. 
Why  has  he  wrested  my  words  from  their  proper 
connection  in  this  case?  He  knew  that  I  was  speak- 
ing of  baptism,  performed  upon  naked  subjects.  But 
he  must  make  the  impression,  that  1  considered  im- 


310 

mtrslon,  superstitious;  and  then  adds — "SuRELr, 
hereafter,  you  will  >'0t  be  found  willing  to 
immerse;  or  if  you  should,  can  any  consent 
that  you  should  immerse  them,  while   they 

KNOW  that    YOU  CONSIDER  IT  A  VIOLATION  OF  THE 

WORD  OF  God?  I  TROW  NOT."  I  said,  candid 
reader,  above,  that  the  geatlemcin  was  alarmed  at 
at  his  own  concession.  He  admits  that  lam  quali- 
fied, but  hopes  nobody  will  consent,  that  /  shall  im- 
merse them.  But  who  told  Mr.  B.  that  I  consider 
immersion  a  violation  of  the  word  of  God7  Where  is  it 
written?  He  says — ^JFhile  they  knoic^  I  so  consider  it. 
Why  did  he  not  give  the  proof,  of  this  allegation?  For 
the  best  of  all  reasons,  he  could  not!!  We  prefer  sprink' 
ling  or  pouring,  in  baptism;  but  we  would  rather  im- 
merse persons  who  cannot  be  convinced  of  the  validity 
of  baptism,  after  these  methods,  than  they  should  go 
where  there  is  'no  confession  of  faith,'  and  where 
scarcely  any  two,  even  of  the  ministers,  agree  in  opinion. 
We  think  'unity  of  faith,''  and  'the  bond  of  peace'  more 
important,  to  a  religious  denomination,  than  the  particu- 
lar form  of  an  outward  ceremx)ny!!  'Judge  ye  what  I 
say.' 

I  have  now  reached  Mr.  B's  last  letter,  in  which 
there  are  some  things  I  intend  briefly  to  notice.  I 
have  observed  that  he  seems  to  be  verv  much  con- 


311 

cerned  about  the  existence  of  different  denomina- 
tions of  Christians.  And  says — "/  think  I  am  ready  to  do 
any  thing  I  can  safely  do,  to  bring  the  scattered  Jlock  of 
Christ  together"  And  very  gravely  asks — "Will  you 
do  the  same?  Allow  me  to  hope  that  you  will." 
Perhaps  the  reader  is  ready  to  ask,  what  does  Mr. 
B.  wish  you  to  give  up  for  the  sake  of  union?  Why, 
gentle  reader,  he  only  modestly  asks,  that  we  give 
up  infant  baptism,  and  that  we  cease  to  baptize  adults  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  adopt  immersion.  Or  in  other 
words,  that  we  shall  all  become  Baptists.  Well; 
what  does  he  propose  to  do  for  union?  Just  nothing 
at  all,  but  be  a  Baptist  still;  for  he  does  not  even  al- 
lude to  any  concession  to  be  made  on  his  part.  A 
kind  and  liberal  soul  truly!!  He  makes  a  proposi- 
tion which  contains  really  nullification  and  consoli- 
dation, in  order  to  union.  He  would  nullify  both 
infant  baptism,  and  baptism  by  pouring;  and  then 
consolidate  the  whole  Pedobaptist  world  into  one 
great  Baptist  church,  in  order,  as  he  says,  *to  bring 
the  scattered  flock  of  Christ  together!!'  . 

It  would  be  thought,  from  what  he  has  said,  that 
those  who  reject  infant  baptism,  and  give  the  ordi- 
nance by  immersion,  are  a  very  united  people.  For  this, 
the  reader  perceives  is  Mr.  B^s  prescription  for  union. 
And  so  they  are  united^  in  two  things,  at  least;  first,  to  op- 


312 

pose  infant  baptism;  and  second,  to  contend f or  immersion^ 
as  the  exclusive  mode.  Beyond  this,  they  have  few  senti- 
ments in  common.  The  history  of  the  church  will  show 
that  among  those  who  have  rejected  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, there  has  been  found  error  of  all  dimensions: — 
from  old  Tertullian,  who  held  it  to  be  improper  to  bap- 
tize unmarried  people,  down  to  Peter  De  Bruis,  who 
held  that  infants  could  not  be  saved,  and  therefore  ought 
not  to  be  baptized; — from  the  German  Anabaptists 
who  held  polygamy,  and  ran  through  the  streets  with 
a  bible  in  one  hand,  and  a  sword  in  the  other,  cry- 
ing, 'repent  and  be  baptized,'  to  the  thousands  of 
Europe  and  America,  who,  in  more  modern  times, 

HAVE    DENIED    THE    DIVINITY  OF  ChRIST,  and    held 

the  error  of  Pelagius,  &;c.  &c.  This  gentleman 
will  find  it  necessary  to  look  out  for  some  other  mode 
of  "uniting  the  flock." 

We  go  against  all  pretended  "unionSi^  and  think 
genuine  Christian  concord,  may  be  maintained, 
without  consolidation.  Let  our  Baptist  brethren, 
become  more  liberal  towards  other  sects,  and  inore 
united  among  themselves,  and  we  shall  have  a  better 
union  of  heart  and  sentiment,  than  can  be  brought 
about  by  any  such  consolidation  of  discordant  ma- 
terials, as   is  proposed  by  the  plan  of  Mr.  B.     I 


313 

would  beg  leave  to  suggest,  that,  this  gentleman 
would  do  well,  to  give  the  world  an  example  of  the 
uniting  effect  of  their  views  of  baptism,  among  them- 
selves, before  he  concerns  himself  about  trying  his 
plan  upon  the  Pedobaptist  community.  True  charity 
always  begins  at  home!!!  He  alleges  ^^That  a  very 
great  number  of  our  people  do  not  have  their  infant  off- 
spring baptized,''^  and  infers  therefrom,  "that  it  is 
not  deemed  a  matter  of  great  importance.''  'A  very 
great  number  oi^  your  people.'  Mark  that!  Where 
do  they  live?  I  do  not  know  them.  Now  if  he  has 
stated  the  truth  about  the  Methodists,  it  becomes 
them  to  see  to  it.  And  if  they  do  'have  their  in- 
fant offspring  baptized;  they  will  recollect  that  this 
gentleman  has  misrepresented  them  publicly,  in  say- 
ing, that  'a  very  great  number  of  them'  neglect 
this  duty. 

On  page  88,  Mr.  B.  says  that  "/  consider  immersion 
a  violation  of  the  word  of  Godf"*  and  on  page  89, 
says,  that,  "/  profess  to  have  no  objection  to  immersion.'''' 
Now  what  confidence,  candid  reader,  can  the  public 
have  in  a  controversialist,  who  will  thus,  to  carry 
his  point,  blow  hot  and  cold,  almost  in  the  same 
breath? 

When  he  becomes  alarmed,  lest  some  ^should  con- 


314 

sent^  that  /  should  dip  them,  he  says,  "while  they 
know  that  you  consider  it  a  violation  of  the 
WORD  OF  God.''  But  when  he  wishes  to  bring 
about  his  union  of  ^all  sincere  believers  in  one  com- 
munion,^  he  says,  "You  profess  to  have  no  objection 
to  immersion — Yor  believe  it  Scriptural  bap- 
tism." Does  the  intelligent  reader  suppose,  that, 
the  gentleman  will  be  found  ingenious  enough  to  re- 
concile these  conflicting  statements?  And  yet  he 
says  to  me,  on  the  very  next  page,  "/am  not  aware  of  mis- 
representing your  views  in  any  instance  whatever.  If  1 
could  know  that  any  observation,  in  all  these  letters,  sets 
your  views  in  an  improper  light,  I  would  sooner  sup- 
press the  wJvole  that  I  have  written,  than  to  publish  that 
observation." 

In  conclusion  I  remark,  I  have  observed  through- 
oat  his  twenty -one  'letters,'  a  continual  disposition 
manifested  to  make  professions.  He  commenced  by 
professing  to  have  no  object  in  view,  'but  to  main- 
tain the  purity  of  our  Lord's  institutions,'  page  4, — 
and  concludes  with  the  profession  which  I  have 
given  in  italics  above.  Did  he  expect  to  impose 
upon  his  readers,  by  confessing  his  convictions 
about  the  ordinance;  and  professing  his  innocency  in  the 
matter  of  misrepresentation?  &c.     This  plan  may 


316 

succeed  with  such  as  have  committed  their  un- 
derstanding and  judgment  to  the  keeping  of  a  priest, 
contented  that  he  shall  think,  and  reason,  and  judge 
for  them.  But  I  flatter  myself,  that  amidst  the  light 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  intelligent  and  candid 
of  all  denominations,  will  need  something  more  than  so- 
phistry for  argument,  or  assumption  for  proof,  upon  bo 
solemn  a  subject  as  the  true  nature  of  a  Christian 
sacrament!! 

This  gentleman  has,  more  than  once  in  his  Letters, 
intimated  a  hope  that  he  might  convince  me  of  the  correct- 
ness of  his  views,  inviting  me  to  examine  the  scriptures 
and  his  arguments;  as  though  he  wished  his  read- 
ers to  suppose  I  had  never  examined  the  subject; 
and  that  by  being  catechised  as  a  school  boy,  I 
might  be  led  to  adopt  his  views  of  baptism.  This 
is  one  of  the  stratagems  by  which  he  seeks  to  con- 
vince, not  me,  but  others.  I  wish  the  reader  to  un- 
derstand, that,  for  the  last  fifteen  years-,  more  or 
less,  I  have  been  engaged  in  examining  and  ^sift- 
ing,^  by  the  scriptures,  the  subject  of  water  baptism 
and  have  been  led  to  adopt  the  conclusions  stated  in 
the  course  df  this  and  the  former  argument.  These 
views  I  commend  to  the  candid  and  careful  exami- 
nation of  the  intelligent  reader,  in  the  fear  of 
28 


316 

God,  and  in  view  of  the  righteous  retribu- 
TioNs  of  the  last  DAY.  "I  spcak  as  unto  wise 
MBS,  judge  ye  what  I  say.'' 


INDEX 


page 

Preface  to  the  first  edition, 3 

Preface  to  the  second  edition,        .         .         .         .        .11 

Baptism, 17 

Obligations  and  perpetuity  of  Christian  Baptism,  .  18 
Christian  Baptism  confounded  with  the   Baptism  of 

John, 19 

Subjects  of  Baptism, 23 

Visible  Church  of  Christ  before  his  coming,      .        .  24 

Abrogation  of  Circumcision, 32 

Baptism  in  the  place  of  Circumcision,  ...  33 
God's  two  covenants  with  Abraham,  .  .  .  .35 
Testimony  of  Zacharias  in  the  covenant  contrasted  with 

Mr.  B's  statements, 36 

Gentiles  derived  spiritual  privileges  from  circumcision,  38 

Profit  of  circumcision,  by  Apostle  Paul,  .  .  ^  .  39 
According  to  Mr.  B.,  Abraham  was  the  father  of  none 

but  believers, 40 

Facts  plainly  and  flatly  contradict  this,         .        .         .41 

Infants  recognized  as  members  of  the  family  church,  42 
The  Divine  authority  which  gave  the  right  has  never 

cancelled  it, 44 

Illustration  or  two  from  common  law,  and  new  consti- 
tution of  Virginia, 45,  46 

Sneerfi  and  ridicule,  made  to  take  the  place  of  argument, 

are  specimens  by  Mr.  B 47 

Proselyte  Baptism, 48 

Baptism  in  existence  before  John  the  Baptist.  Opinion 

from  Maimonides, 49 

Baptism  of  Proselytes,  was  a  baptism  of  families,  em- 
bracing children; — Dr.  Lightfoot,         ...  50 
The  objection  that  infants  are  not  capable  of  believing, 
and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  lies  equally 
against  their  salvation,     .                 ....  51 


318 

page 
Mr.  B's  illustration,  from  Recruiting  Infants,  very  un- 
fortunate,            •         .        .        53 

Men's  views  of  the  meaning  of  terms,  influenced  by 

early  impressions, 54 

Men's  prejudices  very  inveterate  when  they  grow  up 

under  an  exclusive  system, 55 

Mr.  B's  views,  subversive  of  that  order  and  subordina- 
tion, which  is  necessary  to  the  well  being  of  so- 
ciety,       56 

Commission  was  put  into  the  hands  of  Jews  who  never 

knew  a  church  that  rejected  infants,  ...         57 
Objection  taken  from  the  necessity  to  admit  them  alike 

to  the  Lord's  supper,  not  valid,       .         .         .         .58 
Opinions  of   Calvin,  Josephus,  Poole,  Stackhouse,  and 

Doddridge, 59 

Opinion  of  Dr.  Gill,  a  Baptist  writer,    .         .         .         .60 
How  the  apostles  understood  their  commission,         .         61 
Mr.  B's  "four  households'"  destitute  of  any  infants,       .     62 
In  every  case  of  families  being  baptized,  as  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  as  far  as  the  evidence  goes, 
is  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  parents  and  children,       63 

1st.  Case  of  Lydia, ib. 

Her  "journeymen  dyers"  and  dying  establishment  no- 
ticed,       64 

Oikos,  used  in  this  passage,  when  spoken  of  persons, 
denotes  a  family  of  children,  and  includes  those  of 

all  ages, 65 

Opinions  of  the  editor  of  Calmet,  on  oikos  and  oikia,  .  ib. 
Further  opinions  on  this  case  of  family  baptism,  .  67 
Faith  in  children  not  a  necessary  qualification,  .  .  68 
Household  of  Stephanus  and  the  Philippian  jailor,  .  70 
One  thing  is  certain,  the  jailor  and  his  family  were  not 
baptized  according  to  the  practice  of  modern  Bap- 
tists,        72 

Our  Lord's  evidence  for  infant  baptism,  as  taken  from 

Mark  x,  13  to  16,  &c 73 

Continued  observations  on  these  passages,    .         .         .74 

Infants  the  model  for  adults, 77 

Children  to  be  brought  in  the  discipline  of  the  Lord,         78 

Evidence  from  1  Cor.  vii,  14, 80 

Mr.  Dagg's  Exposition, 83 

Reply  to  Mr.  B's  question,  "was  baptism  designed  for 

the  benefit  of  holy  beings?" ,85 


319 

page 
The  antiquity  of  infant  baptism  strong  evidence,  .  86 
Mr.  B.  says  it  was  introduced  by  the  "Romish  apos- 

tacy" — ReplVy 87 

Sentiment  of  the  Baptist  writer,  Dr.  Gall,  .         .         90 

Testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Ireneus,  to  show  that 

it  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  .         .     91 
Testimony  of  Origen,  Cyprian,  the  council  of  Carthage, 

and  Lord  Chancellor  King,          ....         92 
Peter  De  Bruis  and  his  followers  rejected  infant  bap- 
tism on  different  grounds  from  the  Baptists,  .         .     94 
Dialogue  between  neighbor  and  convert,    ...         99 
Summary  of  this  part  of  the  argument,         .         .         .  101 

Conclusion  of  it, .       103 

Observations  in  reply  to  "who  are  the  proper  subjects 

of  baptism?" 105 

Case  of  the  Samaritans  who  heard  Philip,     .         .         .  106 

Case  of  Simon  Magus, 107 

This  case  very  perplexing  to  Calvinist  Baptists,  .  .  109 
Case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  Acts  xxii,  .  .  .  .111 
Case  of  Cornelius,  and  those  in  his  house,  .  .  .  112 
Dr.  T's  rebaptizing  the  members  of  the  old  Baptist 

church, 115 

Mode  of  Baptism, 116 

Mr.  B's  "positive  institutions,"  and  reply  to  it,  117,  118 
Mr.  B.,  King  James,  and  the  translators,  .         .        .119 

John  the  Dipper, 120 

John  the  Baptist,  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  and  Dr.  Clarke, 

placed  against  Dr.  Carson,  ....       123 

Mr.  B.  and  his  Pedobaptist  witnesses,  ....  125 

Dr.  Clarke, 126 

Mr.  Wesley, '     .         .127 

Professor  Stuart,         ,         .         .         .         .         .         .       131 

Peter  Edwards's  view, 134 

History  of  the  ordinances  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,   135 

Remarks  on  1  Cor.  x,  2 136 

Greek  Particles, 139 

John  at  Enon, 142 

Robert  Hall,  and  the  objection  drawn  from  the  number 

baptized  by  John, 145 

The  gentleman  in   Culpepper,  who  baptized  75,  de- 
cently, in  twenty-five  minutes,      ....  146 


320 

pagp 
Baptism  of  the  Spirit,  by  "pouring,"  "shedding  forth," 

and  "falling  upon," 150 

M.  B.  and  the  "sound,"        ......  152 

"Streams,  baths,  tanks,  pools,  hogsheads,"  &CC.  &,c.      .       156 

Case  of  Lydia  and  her  family, 159 

Case  of  the  Jailor,  Acts  xvi,  23  to  40,       .         .         .       161 
Case  of  the  Eunuch,  Acts  viii,  26,        ...         .  169 
Mr.  Wolfe  found  a  sect  in  Mesopotamia,  who  baptized 
children  at  30  days  old,  by  sprinkling  at  the  edge  of 

the  river, 173 

Baptists'  supposed  immersion  of  Christ,  .  .  .  174 
Fanciful  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi,  4 — and  Coloss.  ii,  12,  178 
Two  questions  asked  in  view  of  this  interpretation,  182 
Mr.  B.  says,  "Baptism  does  not  necessarily  include  the 

idea  of  water, 183 

Argument  from  antiquity, 184 

American  Mennonites,  &c 186 

The  validity  of  the  ordinance  as  administered  by  those 

who  have  never  been  immersed,     ....  187 

Roger  Williams,  Mr.  Holliman,  &c 189 

Summaiy, 191 

Conclusion, 197 

Further  Appeal,  in  reply  to  Mr.  B's  21  letters,     .        .  199 
Mr.  B's  three  reasons  for  not  meeting  me  in  oral  dis- 
cussion,   202 

Mr.  B.  and  xix  chap,  of  Acts, 204 

Mr.  B's  effort  to  prove    "there   never  was  a  visible 

church  of  Christ," 206 

Elder  G.  and  all  his  churches, 207 

The  unity  of  the  church, 208 

The  Abrahamic  dispensation  and  circumcision,  .      213 

Baptists  and  close  communion, 214 

Mr.  B.  and  female  communion,  ....      216 

Proselyte  Baptism, 218 

Philadelphia  Baptist  confession,  .  .  .  .  221 
Charge  of  disagreement  with  Mr.  Wesley,  .        .         .  224 

"No  creed  but  the  Bible," 228 

Mr.  B.  and  Acts  xv,  9, 229 

Mr.  B.  and  his  doubts, 231 

Mr.  B.  and  "Paidia"  and  "Brepha,"   .        •        .        .232 

Absurdity  of  M.  B's  logic, 235 

Mr.  B.  and  Dr.  Hill;  "Origen  credibility,"  &.C.  .  .  237 
Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  Judson's  difference,  ....      238 


321 

page 
Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  Wesley's  ordination,  ....  240 
Mr.  B's  charge  of  "neglect"  of  mv  District,  .  .  242 
Mr.  B.  and  "New  Divinity,"  .         .         .         .         .  243 

Mr.  B's  six  Reasons, 246 

Infant  Baptism  and  Popery, 247 

Household  Baptism, 248 

Lydia's  household;  Journeymen  Dyers,  &c.  &,c.  .  .  249 
Mr.  B.  and  the  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  .       254 

"Oikos"  and  "Oikia," 256 

Proofs  from  Old  Testament, 259 

Proofs  from  the  New  Testament, 262 

Mr.  B's  notice  of  the  mode  of  baptism,     .         .         .       265 

Mr.  B's  "explicit  directions," 267 

"King  James,"  Bishops,"  and  "Translators,"  .  .  273 
"Indian,"  "Bible,"  and  "Pedobaptist  Missionary,"  .  275 
Luther  and  John  the  Dipper,     .        .  .        .      277 

"Westminster  Assembly, 278 

Dr.  Clarke  and  "Baptizo," 280 

Apology!!!  for  Mr.  Wesley, 283 

Mr.  B.  and  his  misrepresentation  of  Professor  Stuart,  285 
Mr.  B.  and  his  misrepresentation  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  287 
Mr,  Wesley  and  baptismal  regeneration,  .  .  .  288 
Baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea,  .  .  .  291 
Greek  Prepositions,         ...  ...  292 

Mr.  B's  "small  business," 293 

Saul  of  Tarsus  and  family  of  Cornelius,         .         .         .  294 

Mr.  G.  of  Culpepper, 295 

The  argument  from  "pouring  out  of  spirit,"  &c.  .  .  299 
The  120,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  .  .  .  .300 
Baptism,    "representation  of  the  death   and   burial  of 

Christ," -     .         .302 

3000,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 304 

Case  of  the  Jailor, 305 

"Siffing"  and  "Shifting," 307 

Roger  Williams  baptized  by  a  layman,  .         .         .  308 

Remarks  on  Mr.  B's  charge  "of  calling  immersion  the 

child  of  superstition,"  ....  .       809 

Mr.  B's  "union"  of  all  denominations,  .         .         .  311 

Mr.  B's  conflicting  statements, 314 

Concludine:  Remarks, 315 


K  R  R  A  T  A 


On  page  38,  2nd  line  from  top,  end  quotation  after  the  word  'Christ' 
instead  of  after  'mocliery.' 
"       42,  9th  line  from  bottom,  end  quotation  after  the  word  'seed.' 
"       66,  9th  line  from  top,  instead  of  'the  temple,'  read  'to  the 

temple.' 
"        57,  7th  line  from  top,  read   'which  Peter  and,'   instead  of 

'Peter  and'. 
"       68,  'Dr.  Isaac'  should  be  'D.  Tsaac,'  and  soon  in  everyplace 

where  Dr.  Isaac  occurs. 
"        85,  top  line,  for  'admit'  read  'omit  it.' 
"        86,  7th  line  from  top,  after  each  of  the  words  'baptism'  and 

'sin,'  there  should  be  '  ' 
"        88,  2d  line  from  top,  for  'rite  of  infants'  read  'right  of  in- 
fants.' 
"        97,  4th  line  from  top,  for  'never,'  read  'ever.' 
"      104,  9th  line  from  bottom,  for  'vt'ere  it  was'  read  'where  it  was.' 
"      1.54,  12th  line  from  S«p,  for  'mind,'  read  'wind.' 
"      169,  6th  line  from  bottom,  for  'poing  into'  read  'from  eoing  into.* 
"      172,  9th  line  from  bottom,  for  '.^Ist  and  52d,'  read  '52d  and  53d.' 
"      173,  14th  line  from  bottom,  for  'proposition,'  read  'preposition.' 
"      183,  3d  line  from  top,   for  'as  referring  to  the  spirit  of  God. 
The  water,'  &c.  read  'as  referring  to,  the  spirit  of  God, 
the  water  of  baptism,'  &c.— So  that  the  last  two  sen- 
tences will  be  one. 
"      192,  11th  line  from  bottom,  for  'pascha,'  read  'pesach.' 
"      194,  4th  line  from  top,  for  'that  baptism,'  read  'that  the  bap- 
tism.' 
"      214,  9th  and  10th  lines  from  top,  the  word  'to'  occurs  twice. 
"      230,  3d  line  from  bottom,  for  'purity,'  read  'impurity.' 
"      251,  12th  line  from  top,  'hypothesis,'  should  be  'hypotheses.' 
"      254,  5th  line  from  bottom,  after  the  word  Kentucky,  there 

should  be  a  (?) 
"      262,  15th  line  from  top,  'simame,'  should  be  'surname.' 
"      279,  7th  line  from  top,  the  word  'effect,'  should  be  'affect.' 


